Appendix E. Appendix E: Climate Action Plan, Draft for Public Review. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. December 19, 2008.

Transcription

1 Appendix E Appendix E: Climate Action Plan, Draft for Public Review. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. December 19, 2008.

2

3

4 SFMTA Climate Action Team and Staff Contributors Sam Fielding Amit Ghosh Jason Lee Marty Mellera Jerry Robbins Peter Albert Planning Jeffrey Banks Taxis Andrew Braver Maps Murray Bond Editing Elena Chiong Energy Use Brian Dussault LED Traffic Signals Jack Fleck Planning John Fong Capital Projects Richard Fonseca Non-revenue Vehicles John Funghi Capital Projects Peter Gabancho Capital Projects Elson Hao Bus Technologies Darton Ito - Planning Julie Kirchbaum TEP Frank Lau Smart Bus Technologies Chimmy Lee Layout Frank Markowitz Agency Introduction Bill Neilson Capital Projects Neal Popp Bus Technologies Jay Primus - Planning Britt Tanner Transit Effectiveness Project Marianne Urrutia Energy Use Nita Rabe-Uyeno - Parking Garages Jane Wang Capital Projects Deirdre Weinberg Bicycle Parking Annette Williams Paratransit Paul Williamson Bus Technologies Ken Yee Solid Waste DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 2 of 96

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I: - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 II: THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE 9 The Science of Climate Change 9 The Consequence of Climate Change 10 Transportation and Climate 10 The SFMTA s Role in Mitigating Climate Change 11 Meeting Challenges and Opportunities 14 III: THE CHALLENGE: REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 15 City of San Francisco Emission Reduction Targets 15 Proposition A Transportation Sector Reduction Targets 16 IV: MEASURE OF PLAN AND PROGRAM SUCCESS 19 Agency Targets and Goals 19 Progress Indicators 19 The SFMTA s Baseline 1990 Energy Use 20 Transportation Sector Challenges and Opportunities 20 The SFMTA s Inversely Proportional Role in Reducing Citywide CO 2 21 Tracking Progress 21 V: EXISTING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION MEASURES AND INTERNAL FOOTPRINT 23 A. Transportation Sector 23 Transit 23 Transit Effectiveness Project 25 NextBus 26 Signal Priority Project 26 SFMTA Customer Service Center 27 TransLink SFgo 28 Supplemental Transit Service 28 Bicycling 28 Pedestrian Program 29 Better Streets Plan 29 Pedestrian Traffic Signals 29 Accessible Pedestrian Signals 29 Golden Gate Park Pedestrian Improvements 30 School Safety 30 Parking Authority 30 Electric Vehicle Chargers 30 Reduced Rate Carpool Parking 31 Motorcycle Parking 31 Carshare Parking DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 3 of 96

6 B. Transit and Non-Revenue Vehicles 32 Footprint 32 Reduction Measures - Transit Vehicles NextBus Project Alternative Fuel Pilot Program Clean Air Plan Biodiesel Implementation Compound Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Demonstration Project Advanced Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration Project 39 Non-Revenue Vehicles 39 C. Facilities and Infrastructure: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Footprint 41 Current Reduction Measures 42 MECA Audit 42 PUC Energy Audit 42 Real Estate Department Audit and Improvements 42 LED Traffic Signal Conversion 42 Solar Installations 42 D. Solid Waste and Recycling 43 E. Employee Commute 44 Overview of Employee and Citywide Commute Patterns 44 Employee Home Locations 44 Current Trip Reduction Measures 45 City and County of San Francisco Employee Commuter Benefits 46 Spare the Air Days 46 Free Tourist Buses 46 Vanpools 47 Carpools 47 Casual Carpooling 47 Taxis 47 Private Shuttles 48 F. Capital Projects 49 Green Building Ordinance 49 Muni Metro East 49 Islais Creek Bus Division 49 Central Subway 50 Clean Construction Guidelines 50 VI: ADDITIONAL CLIMATE ACTION PROGRAMS AND EFFORTS POTENTIAL AND NECESSARY NEXT STEPS 51 A. Vehicular Emission Reduction 52 Transit Vehicles Including Non-Revenue Vehicles 52 Non-Transit Vehicles 53 Private Electric Vehicles DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 4 of 96

7 B. Vehicular Demand Reduction Measures 53 Transit Oriented Development 53 SFpark 57 Congestion Pricing 58 Other Vehicular Demand Reduction Measures 59 C. Major Transit Service Expansion 59 Bicycling and Pedestrian Improvements 59 Transit Effectiveness Project 60 Accelerated Transit Expansion Program 62 VII: FUNDING 73 Operating Funding Capacity 75 Capital Funding Capacity 78 Potential Revenue Sources 78 VIII: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 81 ACRONYMS 82 APPENDIX APPENDIX A - SFMTA Introduction 84 APPENDIX B - State Climate Action Legislation 87 APPENDIX C - Proposition A DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 5 of 96

8 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Climate change is the world s most serious environmental challenge. It is primarily caused by greenhouse gases (GHG), principally carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and referred to as carbon emissions, which are produced from fossil fuel combustion. These gases are accumulating in the atmosphere, trapping heat and turning the Earth into a greenhouse. As temperatures continue to increase, weather may become more extreme, large portions of the polar ice caps could melt and other effects may create a ripple of worldwide environmental problems. In California, negative impacts may include hotter summers and warmer winters, more intensive droughts and less snowfall, inundation of low-lying areas and more frequent and intensive fires. A more severe climate will harm agriculture, tourism and other segments of the California economy. Left unchecked, human-induced climate change can destabilize ecosystems that have taken millions of years to evolve. Leading scientific experts have indicated that worldwide carbon emissions must be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. Consistent with this target, the City of San Francisco is working to achieve a short-term 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels by San Francisco s 2005 level was five percent below However, since San Francisco s population is projected to be 13 percent higher than 1990 levels in 2012, per capita carbon emission reductions required will be higher than stated targets. Reducing the severity of climate change requires immediate reductions in energy use while producing the remaining necessary energy from non-polluting sources like solar, wind and water. Since roughly half of San Francisco s carbon emissions come from the transportation sector, a reduction in total vehicle miles traveled and a mode shift to low and zero emission vehicles is necessary to mitigate climate change. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) 2009 Climate Action Plan details policies, program, goals, funding and relationships with other City departments to reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector and in agency operations. As an organization responsible for pedestrian circulation, bicycling, parking, street management and the Muni transit system, the SFMTA is essential to reducing carbon emissions in San Francisco. While the SFMTA itself contributes one percent to the City s carbon footprint, it directly prevents much larger amounts of emissions by attracting people to sustainable transportation modes. Approximately 50 percent of San Franciscans commute to work by transit, walking, carpooling or bicycling a higher percentage than nearly every other American city. In 2002 the Board of Supervisors passed the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Resolution, which calls for a Climate Action Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. With the San Francisco Department of Environment leading interagency coordinating and preparing a comprehensive, citywide plan, the City has directed each department to outline plans to reduce its own energy use footprint and to meet the target of reducing 1990 carbon emission levels by 20 percent by SFMTA will likely meet this goal. Since 1990 it has replaced its diesel motor coach fleet with modern, low-emission models and introduced fuel efficient hybrid buses. More than half of Muni s revenue vehicles are powered by non-polluting, hydroelectric power, including light rail trains, historic streetcars, cable cars and the largest fleet of electric trolley buses in North America. Muni has also begun to implement its Clean Air Plan: Zero Emissions 2020, a blueprint for further reducing motor coach emissions and fossil fuel use through bridging technologies such as hybrid and fuel cell buses and cleaner fuels such as biodiesel. In addition to the City departmental goal of a 20 percent reduction, Proposition A, passed by voters in November 2007, included a 20 percent reduction goal specific to the entire transportation sector. Proposition A also calls for the SFMTA to prepare its own 2009 Climate Action Plan, which will complement the SF Department of the Environment s plan by focusing on emission reductions achieved through transportation policies and programs. Among City agencies, the SFMTA and its multi-modal purview is DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 6 of 96

9 especially able to effect significant reductions since private automobiles are the primary source of emissions in this sector, representing 60 percent of the problem. Remaining emissions come from heavy trucks and buses, trains, boats, planes and all other mobile sources. The SFMTA 2009 Climate Action Plan outlines steps needed to achieve this goal, including emission free vehicles, fewer vehicle miles traveled and modal shift to transit, bikes and walking. The SFMTA is working to reduce the impacts of automobile emissions and congestion through multiple initiatives. For example, the Transit Effectiveness Project (TEP) aims to attract motorists onto transit through a faster, more reliable and more efficient transit system. Using existing resources, the TEP will reorganize the Muni network of bus routes and rail lines to concentrate service improvements along the most heavily-traveled corridors. Another program, SFpark, will test variable pricing to improve the management of the City s limited parking supply. A major goal of SFpark is to reduce congestion and pollution associated with circling for parking. In addition, the SFMTA s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) program, supported by planning and redevelopment programs in the City, will include converting property owned by the SFMTA and property adjacent to significant Agency transit facilities to land uses that support and build upon transit ridership. This, in turn, will foster a lifestyle that presents a smaller carbon footprint than non-tod projects, as studies show, and will generate revenue for the SFMTA to support the system s operation. Existing SFMTA initiatives will help reduce the City s transportation-related carbon emissions as every transit passenger mile saves four total vehicle miles traveled; however, achieving the 20 percent reduction goal will require a major shift from single occupancy gasoline powered cars to transit, bicycles, walking and other sustainable transportation modes, as well as to cleaner automobiles and trucks. This can only be attained with a major infusion of resources. Currently most SFMTA buses and trains are full during peak hours, and while some capacity exists during off-peak hours, service levels can be inadequate to attract discretionary ridership. As a result, people are choosing to drive and the SFMTA is not capturing the ridership that it could. At one time, over 950,000 customers per day used transit in San Francisco compared to 700,000 today. Systemwide service increases will require significant operating and capital funding. With substantial cuts in state operating funding and a weak economy, the SFMTA will have immediate difficulty maintaining, let alone expanding, the current transit service it operates and other transportation programs it manages. While a detailed budget has yet to be developed to include all of the proposed initiatives in this plan, an order of magnitude calculation suggests that incrementally higher operating costs could be hundreds of millions of dollars annually and that additional capital costs could also be hundreds of millions of dollars. On the other hand, incremental revenue from candidate initiatives such as the TOD program, SFpark and congestion pricing would likely be in the tens of millions of dollars range. Passenger vehicle trips are the single largest contributor to transportation sector emissions. Due to an increased number of passenger vehicle miles, the transportation sector s share of citywide GHG emissions is growing despite the fact that overall citywide GHG emissions are going down. The SFMTA is coordinating policies, programs and incentives to encourage the use of plug-in electric and other advanced passenger vehicle technologies as well as the use of cleaner fuels. This includes working on green parking policies and partnering with the SF Department of the Environment to lead the collaborative effort between the City, the public and industry stakeholders to make San Francisco ready for the mode shift to plug-in vehicles. The SFMTA is committed to taking bold action to start the process and is poised to provide positive market signals for the companies that are going to be counted on to provide plug-in vehicles. The SFMTA will also work with other City departments to strengthen investment and incentive efforts in transit oriented land development that will provide certain emission-reduction benefits and reflect an increasingly popular consensus in reducing GHG emissions. The SFMTA recognizes that these investments and efforts in turn are key opportunities to invigorate and enhance the local economy, and will assume its role as a partner in optimizing the benefits of the climate action campaign DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 7 of 96

10 While the SFMTA is committed to internal and transportation sector GHG emission reductions, availability of resources is the critical factor in the prioritization, timelines and the Agency s ability to implement these programs. In summary, while the SFMTA s internal footprint is being successfully addressed through ever-cleaner transit vehicles, increased energy efficiency and better waste reduction, the direct measure of the SFMTA s contribution to reducing the much larger scope of transportation sector emissions will primarily be found in increased transit ridership, increased use of plug-in passenger vehicles, improved parking management, expanded vehicle technology programs, increased provision of bicycle facilities, promotion of walking and increased transit oriented development DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 8 of 96

11 The Science of Climate Change II. THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is the term for long-term changes in the pattern formed by daily weather. Average temperatures are rising, due to unprecedented, human-generated emissions that create a greenhouse layer in the atmosphere, trapping heat. Hence the common term greenhouse gases, or GHGs. The term climate change describes the consequences of global warming over time. The principal way humans increase GHGs in the atmosphere is by burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and petroleum, producing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and accounting for 75 percent of human caused GHGs in the United States. GHG emissions include human and animal contributions. The other primary GHG, methane, is emitted during coal, natural gas and oil production and distribution, by landfills and also from animals such as cows. Other GHGs include nitrogen oxide (NOx), fluorinated gases and ozone. The United States has one of the highest levels of per capita GHG emissions in the world and contributes to nearly a quarter of the global emissions problem despite having less than five percent of the world s population. CO 2 is removed from the atmosphere when it is absorbed by plants. Oceans can also absorb CO 2 but also turn more acidic, making it difficult for oceanic life to survive. Neither plants nor the oceans can absorb enough of the soaring amounts of human-induced CO 2 to offset global warming. Since 1960, atmospheric CO 2 has increased from less than 320 parts per million (ppm) to over 380 ppm and is rising more than two ppm per year. Source: The Keeling Curve: Atmospheric CO 2 concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa Observatory The impacts of climate change are already being felt, from melting glaciers and ice caps in polar regions to stronger hurricanes in the tropics. Over the past fifty years, the average global temperature has risen one degree Fahrenheit. It appears that this temperature rise will accelerate under the status quo. 1 The vast majority of the climate scientific community believes a concerted and coordinated effort must be made to limit global warming to no more than 3.6 degrees F above current levels to avoid the worst impacts of 1 SF Department of Environment, Climate Action Plan, Section 1.2 Local Impacts of Climate Change, p DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 9 of 96

12 climate change. To limit global warming to less than 3.6 degrees F, it is believed that atmospheric CO 2 concentrations must not exceed ppm, 2 although recent studies argue that the current level of 380 ppm may already be high enough to melt the polar icecaps. 3 The Consequences of Climate Change A warmer global climate melts the icecaps, which leads to a rise in sea levels and the inundation of lowlying coastal areas. Climate change can alter precipitation patterns, resulting in less winter snow and spring runoff in some areas and floods and drought in others. Together, these changes influence ecosystems (shore line, silt run off), human health (mosquitoes and other parasites), the economy (tourism, property, health insurance) and infrastructure (flooding, erosion and the rising water table translate to problems with roads, pipelines, transportation, underground cables and sewage systems). It is projected that in 30 years, average temperatures across North America will rise by 1.8 to 5.4 degrees F. Sea level is rising at a rate of 0.08 to 0.12 inches per year. Some projections indicate that the San Francisco and Oakland airports, as well as some low-lying coastal communities, will be under water by Other negative impacts may include more intensive droughts and more frequent and intensive fires. California s 2008 fire season, one of the more severe on record, may be a sign of things to come. In San Francisco, the health of residents may be endangered due to increased air pollution. Increased heat may increase ozone levels and air pollution toxicity, which may intensify respiratory conditions such as asthma. Transportation and Climate Change California is second among the states in GHG emissions and contributes approximately seven percent of US GHG. On a per capita basis, however, California actually has one of the lowest GHG emissions among the fifty states approximately 11 metric tons per person per year compared to over 20 metric tons nationwide 5. While California s per capita level of GHG emissions compares favorably with several Western European nations and is far below the national average, it still exceeds what is sustainable in order to stabilize the earth s climate. Moreover, California s overall carbon footprint is significant because the state has such a large population (over 36 million) that is rapidly growing (46 million projected by 2025). With less than 0.6 percent of the world s population, California contributes two percent of global, human generated GHG. While San Francisco s electricity is primarily generated by clean hydroelectric power, more than 50 percent of California s electricity comes from burning fossil fuels (natural gas and coal). Transitioning to solar, wind and other more sustainable forms of electricity generation is necessary to reduce GHG emissions. Even more significant than electricity generation to the mitigation of climate change is the reduction of emissions from the transportation sector. Burning fossil fuels for transportation is the primary contributor to GHG in California. Thus, reducing automobile usage and making vehicles cleaner are critical to cutting carbon emissions. California leads the nation in vehicle miles traveled and contains many automobileoriented, low density cities. San Francisco contributes 9.7 million tons of GHG per year. This exceeds the per capita state average, but nearly half of these emissions come from the transportation sector, and so a large percentage of non- 2 Union of Concerned Scientists, A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions, 3 Science Daily: 4 SF Department of Environment, Climate Action Plan, Section 1.2 Sea Level Rise, p Energy Information Administration: DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 10 of 96

13 residential commute emissions are included. Transportation sector emissions in San Francisco, including SFMTA vehicles and all on-road mobile sources, aircraft, marine vessels and trains, 6 rose by 10 percent from 1990 to 2000 (4.6 to 5.1 million tons). Under the status quo, transportation sector emissions are projected to continue to increase to approximately 5.5 million tons in The breakdown of 1990 GHG emission levels between stationary and mobile sources is shown in the following graph: Source: Climate Action Plan for San Francisco, September 2004 On a per passenger mile basis, the most efficient non-polluting forms of transportation are walking, bicycling and riding the SFMTA s electric vehicles (trolley buses, light rail vehicles, historic streetcars and cable cars). Other forms of public transportation, including BART 7, Caltrain and Muni s diesel buses, 8 emit substantially less CO 2 per passenger mile than driving (both single-occupant vehicles and carpools); therefore, shifting people from automobiles to more sustainable forms of transportation is essential to combating climate change. The SFMTA s Role in Mitigating Climate Change The SFMTA is unique among large transportation organizations in the United States because it manages public transit, bicycling, pedestrians, traffic and parking, and soon taxis. It has an annual operating budget of approximately $790 million and employs 4,865 people. San Francisco has been a national leader in the promotion of environmentally-friendly alternatives to the automobile. It was one of only seven cities in the United States that preserved its streetcar network after World War II and remains one of just five cities still operating electric trolley buses. In 1962, the citizens of 6 This category is further defined as emissions from private vehicles within San Francisco, and between the City and Bay Area, as well as BART, other transit and the City s municipal fleet. 7 Powering electric vehicles may still result in the emission of CO 2, depending on how electricity is generated. Electricity for SFMTA s trolley buses, light rail vehicles, historic streetcars and cable cars is primarily generated through hydroelectric power, which does not produce substantial amounts of GHGs. 8 Muni s diesel buses are all fueled with biodiesel including 86 hybrids. According to National Biodiesel Board and BAE Systems data, this reduces CO 2 emissions by 15 to 25 percent compared to modern, conventional buses fueled with diesel DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 11 of 96

14 San Francisco joined voters in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in taxing themselves to build the regional Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) system. In 1973, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a Transit First policy that made it City policy to prioritize public transit and non-automobile modes in transportation planning decisions. Today the SFMTA provides approximately 700,000 transit trips on an average weekday, one of the highest in the nation on a per capita basis. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, approximately 50 percent of San Francisco residents use sustainable forms of transportation walking, bicycling or public transit for their journey to work. The SFMTA s compact development pattern and comprehensive travel options allow nearly 30 percent of San Francisco households to avoid automobile ownership altogether. Because of the efficiency and high utilization of public transit in San Francisco, the SFMTA manages to transport a large volume of people with a relatively small carbon footprint itself approximately one percent of total citywide emissions. The SFMTA operates one of the cleanest transit fleets in the world. More than half of its vehicles are powered by zero GHG emission, hydroelectric power, 9 including light rail trains, historic streetcars, cable cars and electric trolley buses. The SFMTA has also begun to implement its Clean Air Plan: Zero Emissions 2020, a blueprint for further reducing motor coach emissions through bridging technologies such as hybrid and fuel cell buses and cleaner fuels such as biodiesel. San Francisco remains transit-oriented in comparison to the rest of the Bay Area. According to the 2000 Census, 31.1 percent of San Franciscans commuted on transit while another 9.4 percent walked to work. This compares to 6.6 and 2.3 percent, respectively, in the rest of the Bay Area, and even lower shares in the state of California. The San Francisco transit-oriented lifestyle is attributed to the density of transit service, walkable streets, parking management programs and the density and mix of land uses that numerous studies consistently show foster a lifestyle of walking and riding transit. As a result, most projects built in San Francisco comply with widely-accepted land use mix and density standards for TOD in state and national planning guidelines. San Francisco also has the second highest bicycle ridership of cities over 500,000 population in the U.S. with nearly three percent of work trips now made on bikes. Nevertheless, even in San Francisco, the trend has been away from more sustainable forms of transportation as vehicle ownership has risen and employment and shopping have become more dispersed. In 1960, for example, more than 50 percent of San Francisco commuters took transit or walked to work about a 10 percent higher share than today. While transit and walking usage for San Franciscans who work in Downtown San Francisco remain high at approximately 65 percent, these modes are much less popular in other travel markets. For example, transit and walking combined capture about 34 percent of work trips between San Francisco neighborhoods. In particular, the rapidly-growing market segment of work trips between San Francisco neighborhoods and the Bay Area counties surrounding San Francisco has a very low transit and walking mode share just 15 percent. Currently, approximately 100,000 San Franciscans, one-quarter of the workforce, commute to locations outside of San Francisco. Regional transit trips for San Franciscans are very difficult to serve by transit as they typically involve a longer local ride to a BART or Caltrain station located in the eastern half of the City. The following chart illustrates this fact as well as the shows the growth in regional trips: 9 While hydroelectric power produces zero GHG - it still has an ecological impact DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 12 of 96

15 In addition to work trips, addressing carbon emissions in the transportation sector will also require a focus on non-work trips. Only about one third of private trips are work related. When non-work trips are taken into consideration, transit s mode share declines to approximately 15 percent. 10 Non-work trips are generally more discretionary than work trips. They typically occur during non-peak hours, when roads are less congested, parking is more available and transit runs less frequently. Improving transit and other sustainable travel modes to be more competitive for non-work trips merits special attention. It is also important to recognize the distinct advantage that private autos have for non-peak discretionary trips. Therefore, it is essential that these trips do not produce significant GHG emissions primarily by using plugin vehicles charged with renewable sources of electricity and convenient re-charging stations. Given these considerations, several steps must be taken to increase transit, bicycling, walking, ridesharing and cleaner vehicle usage: The City should continue to support employment growth in Downtown San Francisco, where transit and walking already have a competitive advantage over the automobile. The City should also provide additional transit capacity to accommodate new ridership on currently overcrowded corridors as well as residential and mixed-use TOD throughout the City. Transit must be improved between San Francisco neighborhoods through more frequent and faster cross-town service. As the second-densest city in the country, San Francisco can support high levels of transit service. SFMTA transit connections to regional services such as BART, San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans and Caltrain), Alameda Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) and the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation Distinct (Golden Gate Transit and Ferry) must be strengthened to facilitate travel to counties surrounding San Francisco. 10 San Francisco County Transportation Authority model DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 13 of 96

16 Transit frequency and service hours must be expanded during off-peak times to capture a greater share of off-peak, non-work trips. Alternatives to transit and driving alone must be encouraged, including bicycling, walking and ridesharing. The use of cleaner vehicles must be encouraged through increased availability of support infrastructure with clean air vehicle parking and charging provisions. Promotion of TOD and other vehicle demand reduction strategies. Land use changes, transportation pricing and the expansion of more sustainable vehicles and driving alternatives are necessities in mitigating climate change. Unless there is immediate and decisive action, the trend towards increased transportation sector GHG emissions will likely accelerate. Interregional vehicle trips are growing faster than regional trips and now make up more than half of transportation sector emissions. Vehicle miles traveled in San Francisco are projected to increase by 13 percent in 2012 over 1990 levels despite the fact that San Francisco residents have one of the lowest vehicle ownership rates in the state. Meeting Challenges with Opportunities The SFMTA recognizes that the strategies to address climate change can have profound benefits on the local economies of San Francisco and the Bay Area. Documenting the reduction in emissions accomplished by Climate Action Plan policies helps position the SFMTA as a recipient of funds in the emerging carbontrading markets. In addition, the development of a clean-technology, robust transit network serving a vibrant, compact city enhances San Francisco s Transit First tradition, increases transit ridership and makes San Francisco and the Bay Area a more attractive, competitive place for living, working, study and leisure in three fundamental ways: Offering sound, reliable transit alternatives that ensure citywide and regional mobility, saving millions of dollars annually typically lost in traffic congestion Stimulating the value of property, in particular TOD, which has shown to maintain higher value and generate higher tax returns than property remote from transit Developing a future land-use/transportation infrastructure that preserves and enhances San Francisco s tradition of healthy, cleaner air from the neighborhood level to the City and region. The relationship between reducing carbon emissions and stimulating the local and regional economies is both integral and intractable. As a place of innovation, creativity and environmental legacy, San Francisco is better equipped than most cities to face the climate change crisis, and therefore has both the economic opportunity and the civic responsibility to lead the nation in the campaign to reduce carbon emissions DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 14 of 96

17 III. THE CHALLENGE: REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS City of San Francisco Emission Reduction Targets The City of San Francisco recognizes the importance of mitigating climate change through the reduction of GHG emissions. In September 2004 San Francisco s Department of Environment (SF Environment), released the citywide Climate Action Plan. In this plan, Mayor Gavin Newsom wrote: We must act now to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions or we will quickly reach a point at which global warming cannot be reversed. That is why San Francisco holds itself accountable for its contributions to global warming, and is committed to dramatically reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions to 20 percent below 1990 levels by On April 29, 2008 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed and the Mayor signed an ordinance establishing the following GHG emissions targets: (a) 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, (b) 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2017, (c) 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2025 and (d) 80 percent below 1990 levels by These standards are consistent with what leading scientists have stated must be achieved to avoid extreme climate change. They are more aggressive than the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty sponsored by the United Nations to reduce GHG emissions. 11 Existing GHG Emissions and Reduction Targets Year City of San Francisco AB 32 Governor Schwarzenegger s Executive Order S Existing citywide GHG emissions are 5% below 1990 levels % below 1990 levels 25% below 1990 levels 40% below 1990 levels 80% below 1990 levels 20% below 1990 levels 80% below 1990 levels Kyoto Protocol 7% below 1990 levels The City s GHG emissions in 2005 were approximately five percent lower than in However, the share of citywide emissions from the transportation sector has risen. Therefore, achieving the 2012 target of a 20 percent reduction in transportation sector emissions below 1990 levels, as mandated in Proposition A, represents an even greater challenge due to the increased number of passenger cars on the road today. Meeting the 2012 and subsequent targets therefore requires a greater per capita emissions reduction. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has recently estimated that the population of San Francisco could reach approximately 815,000 by an increase of 13 percent over 1990 levels (See table 11 As of 2008, 183 parties have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The United States and Australia have not. San Francisco s 1990 base level is calculated and used in conformance with the international/un standard. 12 ABAG s Projections 2007 study estimated San Francisco s population to reach 808,700 in 2010 and 823,800 in DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 15 of 96

18 below for overall population projections). Combining this 13 percent estimated population growth with a requirement to reduce total citywide carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2012 translates into a per capital reduction of about 30 percent. San Francisco Job and Population Forecasts Jobs San Francisco 550, , , , , , , , ,860 Change from 1990 SF Bay Region Change from % <1% 8% 16% 24% 33% 42% 51% 3,206,100 3,753,460 3,449,640 3,693,920 3,979,200 4,280,700 4,595,170 4,921,680 5,247,780-17% 7% 15% 24% 34% 43% 54% 64% Population San Francisco 723, , , , , , , , ,800 Change from 1990 SF Bay Region Change from % 10% 12% 14% 18% 23% 27% 32% 6,023,577 6,783,762 7,096,100 7,412,500 7,773,000 8,069,700 8,389,600 8,712,800 9,031,500-13% 18% 23% 29% 34% 39% 45% 50% Source: MTC Commuter Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area , ABAG Projections The San Francisco Bay Region consists of the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma. San Francisco s April 29, 2008 ordinance also requires all City departments to assess their GHG emissions. By January 30, 2009 each department must submit a plan on how to achieve the reduction target for the emissions directly under its jurisdiction. In compliance with this requirement, the SFMTA will likely be able to reduce its own GHG emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 with initiatives it has already completed and programs currently underway. The SFMTA s internal footprint is being successfully addressed through ever-cleaner transit vehicles, increased energy efficiency and better waste reduction. The direct measure of the SFMTA s contribution to reducing the much larger scope of transportation sector emissions will primarily be found in increased transit ridership, increased use of plug-in passenger vehicles, improved parking management, expanded vehicle technology programs and increased transit oriented development. Proposition A Transportation Sector Reduction Targets The SFMTA has prepared this 2009 Climate Action Plan in compliance with separate requirements established by Proposition A, which was passed by the voters in November As noted previously, Proposition A mandates that the SFMTA develop a plan to reach a 20 percent GHG reduction below 1990 levels by 2012 in the transportation sector, not merely in the Agency s internal operations. This target cannot be achieved unless significant incremental funding is secured and dramatic changes are made; under the status quo, 2012 transportation-related emissions could be 20 percent higher than in DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 16 of 96

19 Historical Transportation Sector GHG Emissions and Reduction Targets Emissions (million tons CO 2 ) Year Road Municipal SFMTA Rail Other Total Vehicles Fleet and Buses Transit Status Quo % Reduction Target Required Reduction by * * -1.8 * Transit service increases to accommodate new ridership may cause transit emissions to increase, but would be offset by much larger decreases in road vehicles emissions. Achieving the Proposition A GHG target would require an annual transportation sector reduction of 1.8 million tons of CO 2. Since over 90 percent of transportation-related carbon emissions come from road vehicles, reaching this target must primarily come from a combination of reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and trips from private automobiles as well as improved fuel efficiency and new vehicle technologies. Although the SFMTA does not have direct control over private vehicles, its policies and services strongly influence travel choice and thus transportation-related emissions. 13 The SFMTA s primary contribution to the reduction of transportation-related emissions will need to come through shifting people from singleoccupancy gasoline cars to transit, ridesharing, cleaner vehicles, walking and bicycling. In particular, increasing the frequency and quality of public transit will be a critical step that potentially will require hundreds of millions of dollars. Adding more service will likely cause the SFMTA s own emissions to increase but will be offset by a much greater decrease in automobile-generated emissions. While attracting more customers onto transit would have the most significant impact on emissions reductions, the SFMTA must also continue to be an environmental leader by pursuing clean vehicle technologies for its transit and non-revenue vehicle fleet. Trolley buses, light rail vehicles, historic streetcars and cable cars compose over half of the SFMTA s transit fleet and are powered by electricity, a renewable source that can be generated with minimal GHG emissions and at a relatively low cost. In contrast, diesel fuel, which powers conventional and hybrid-electric buses, is a non-renewable resource whose supply will be constrained in the future. 14 The most effective means to reduce VMT is transit oriented development building developments within walking or biking distance of jobs and transit. Fortunately many parts of San Francisco already have the density required to be an even more transit and bicycle-oriented city. Even so, for much of San Francisco, especially the southern and western portions, major land use changes will require many years or decades to implement, and existing land use patterns are unlikely to change in time to meet carbon emission reduction goals. Therefore, for these areas, as for most moderate and low density development in California, the most immediate means to meet carbon emission standards is conversion to plug-in vehicles. In addition to contributing to the climate change problem, continued reliance on fossil fuels will place the United States increasingly at risk both financially and with regards to national security. The U.S. consumes 13 In turn, the SFMTA s policies and services are strongly influenced by regional, state and national policies and funding priorities that are beyond the SFMTA s control. These may include, for example, CAFÉ (fuel economy) standards and funding for mass transit expansion. 14 The SFMTA uses B20 a blend of 80 percent diesel fuel with 20 percent biodiesel. B20 starts to address the fossil fuel problem by reducing GHG emissions by more than 15 percent relative to pure diesel DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 17 of 96

20 25 percent of the world s oil but has only two percent of its reserves. The dramatic escalation in fuel prices during the first half of 2008 had severe economic consequences on transit systems across the United States, even during a time of record ridership and increased revenues from fares DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 18 of 96

21 IV. MEASURE OF PLAN AND PROGRAM SUCCESS In the SF Department of Environment s 2004 Climate Action Plan, the SFMTA s GHG emissions were projected to increase slightly by However, this was due to trending and based on larger than normal fleet counts during vehicle replacement at that time. In 2008 the SFMTA s GHG emissions appear to be well on target for 20 percent reduction goals in In contrast, San Francisco transportation sector emissions are projected to increase by 0.40 million tons in 2012 due to an increasing number of private VMTs. This section provides definitions and details regarding how the SFMTA will measure climate action progress, as well as discuss present hurdles to quantifying these results. Agency Targets and Goals As discussed, there are essentially two areas of reduction to consider, agency footprint reduction and transportation sector reductions. For the Agency, the City s municipal goal of 20 percent reduction is very realistic, due to replacement of older buses, addition of hybrid buses and use of biodiesel, so stabilization is the ultimate goal. Reduction to minimum is the interim goal. For the transportation sector, the goal is a 20 percent reduction of 1990 emissions by In order to reach this level of reduction, transit service would essentially need to be doubled, the private vehicles still in use would need to be converted to technologies such as plug-ins and other sustainable modes like walking and bicycling would need to be expanded. Progress indicators Operations Increased transit ridership Reduce private VMTs Reduce need for off-street parking Convert on-street parking to transit, bicycle and pedestrian uses Generate more efficient use of roadways, reduced road maintenance, shorter highway commute times 15 Vehicles Reduce transit fleet vehicle emissions to zero Increase number of green vehicle registrations Facilities Increase energy efficiency and renewable energy Provide infrastructure to support transit and non-transit electric vehicles Solid Waste and Recycling Optimize waste reduction Employee Commute Reduce total VMTs Construction and Capital Projects Divert tons of C&D waste from landfills 15 This can be measured based on the Congestion Management assessment performed by the Transportation Authority for all major arterials every year DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 19 of 96

22 The SFMTA will use the following conversion factors and definitions for the collection of energy and fuel data and for calculating associated CO 2 e 16 emissions. For Electricity Use: Emissions factor for electricity = 33.1 lbs CO2e /mwh (0.031 lbs/kwh) Emissions factor for natural gas = lbs CO2e /therm Every year the SFMTA will receive an Energy Usage Report from SFPUC detailing the energy usage from agency buildings and facilities. This chart lists budgeted, actual and variance electricity and natural gas usage. Since One South Van Ness and 875 Stevenson are operated by the Real Estate Department, the SFMTA will not include this energy use as part of the agency calculation. The Real Estate Department is responsible for managing their buildings. For Fuel Use: Biodiesel (B20) = lbs CO2e /gallon Gasoline = lbs CO2e /gallon CNG 11.7 lbs CO2e/therm SFMTA s Baseline 1990 Energy Use First, a common and agreed upon database and fleet measurement system are needed. For the SFMTA s 1990 baseline, the SF Department of Environment and Public Utilities Commission (PUC) used the measure of vehicular travel in terms of gallons of fuel. In cases where specific historical or forecast data was not available, estimates were made by extrapolating from existing data. The SFMTA s baseline data appear to be too low at 4.6 million gallons for diesel fuel alone; documents show 5.6 million gallons of fuel used in Looking just at the primary contributor to SFMTA GHG emissions - diesel fuel used in buses - in the baseline year of 1990, Muni used 5.6 million gallons of diesel according to agency statistics. In FY 2007/08 the SFMTA used 4.8 million gallons of diesel fuel. Muni s bus fleet has increased by 17 buses in There have also been many service changes made in the past 18 years that may also account for some differences between current and baseline fuel use. The addition of hybrid buses has raised fuel economy, while the use of biodiesel and PM+NOx reduction devices on all non-hybrid buses may have slightly decreased fuel economy (although fuel-lifecycle CO 2 reductions from biodiesel of up to 17 percent outweigh pure fuel economy indicators). The 1999 service and fleet expansion issue is an excellent example of the problem in measuring the the SFMTA baseline GHG emissions. The SFMTA should be accountable for internal and vehicle-average reductions and the reduction in citywide VMT, while not being penalized for service expansion and its correlated fuel use. Transportation Sector Challenges and Opportunities Well over 60 percent of mobile source GHG emissions come from cars and light trucks, 15 percent come from other highway vehicles, 12 percent come from airplanes and three percent come from marine vehicles. Locomotives and other mobile vehicles make up the rest. An average private vehicle emits about one pound of GHG emissions per mile. The growth in transportation sector emissions is primarily the result of increased emissions from SUVs and light duty trucks. CO 2 16 eco 2 captures all green house gas emissions reduced to their carbon dioxide equivalents DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 20 of 96

23 emissions from automobiles increased only 1.8 percent from 1990 to 2004 while emissions from trucks and light duty vehicles increase 64 percent during the same time. Federal fuel economy standards for auto manufacturers do not adequately deal with the rising emissions from increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT). If the growth rate of VMTs continues at historical rates, transportation sector GHG emissions will not decline. Further, this growth has increased transportation sector loads, leading to more total daily delay hours spent in traffic congestion and making efficient surface level public transit even more challenging. Every transit passenger mile reduces total VMTs by four miles. The SFMTA s Inversely Proportional Role in Reducing Citywide CO 2 As more people are attracted to public transit, the SFMTA s emissions footprint also increases, although at a much smaller rate. In total, GHG emissions from the transportation sector can be significantly reduced by converting private VMTs to transit passenger miles. A solo motorist switching his/her commute to public transportation can reduce GHG emissions by 20 pounds per day or almost 2.5 tons annually. The savings when that driver switches from an SUV to transit grows to almost four tons per year. This compares to reducing about 335 pounds of GHG per year by replacing an old refrigerator. Converting from daily private vehicle use to the use of public transit can reduce an average household s GHG emissions footprint by 25 to 30 percent per year. For two-car households, more than half of GHG emissions can be private vehicle related. In other words, two-car households could reduce their GHG footprint by about one third annually for every car they replace with public transit. There may also be a large contribution from local employers, such as Yahoo and Google, already using rideshare and/or private bus fleets for their employee commutes to and from San Francisco. This contribution must also be considered as these programs are improved through parking agreements and other policies. The challenge for the SFMTA is to attract more customers through more efficient and better service, while being able to measure GHG emissions reduction success in terms of its own footprint and VMT reductions that are more indicative of citywide reductions. Tracking Progress The SFMTA will track and present climate action progress using the following chart: Action # Issue/Element Target: G, B, R* Status Transportation Clean Fuels & Vehicles Pedestrian Bicycling Walking Policy and Leadership Transit Fleet Target: Government, Business, Residential DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 21 of 96

24 One measurement and outreach tool may be an online CO 2 emissions map system. This system would use SFMTA-specific metrics for the goal of calculating carbon emissions that are associated with transit trips. Many other data sets could be useful as well - from simple metrics like daily ridership to figuring out the effect of transit on TOD. Data presented online in this way may reflect well on the SFMTA and help build ridership, since the public could understand and better visualize the emissions savings. This model can also demonstrate that a better indicator of transit-related emissions is the difference that additional transit customers make, rather than pure vehicle based emission footprints. Mobile sources are responsible for about half of citywide GHG emissions. However, it must be emphasized and understood that public transit cannot reduce all transportation sector emissions. Ignoring the issues associated with extreme public transit growth, roughly 30 percent is the maximum citywide GHG reduction possible if all private vehicle trips were replaced with transit rides. The remaining 20 percent citywide GHG emissions from the transportation sector would still be present in heavy trucks, trains, airplanes, marine vessels and from public transit itself DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 22 of 96

25 V. EXISTING CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION MEASURES AND INTERNAL FOOTPRINT The SFMTA is well on target to meet the City s goal of reducing departmental GHG emissions by 20 percent in One of the largest contributors to the SFMTA s GHG emissions footprint is fuel use. In 1990, the baseline year for citywide reduction goals, the SFMTA used 5.6 million gallons of diesel fuel. In the first full year of hybrid bus service, FY 2007/08, the SFMTA used 4.8 million gallons of fuel, a reduction of 14 percent. Further, the Agency operates on biodiesel (B20) which in itself reduces lifecycle GHG emissions by over 15 percent. The following sections detail existing internal climate change work in the areas of the transportation sector, transit and non-revenue vehicles, facilities and infrastructure, solid waste and recycling, employee commutes and capital projects. Transit A. Transportation Sector Since 1990 Bay Area transit systems have expanded transit options to improve travel to and within San Francisco. In particular, the SFMTA and the San Francisco Municipal Railway have undertaken the following major infrastructure projects: J Church light rail line was extended from Church & 30 th to Balboa Park (1993); The 31 Balboa route was converted from diesel buses to electric trolley coach service (1994); The F Market historic streetcar line opened from the Castro to the Transbay Terminal (1995), and was later extended to Fisherman s Wharf (2000); The N Judah light rail line was extended from the Embarcadero Station to the Caltrain Station in the South-of-Market area (1998); The T Third light rail line opened to Visitacion Valley (2007); The Metro East Light Rail Maintenance and Operations Facility (Muni Metro East) opened, providing additional space to support SFMTA s growing light rail fleet and system extensions (2008); The Central Subway, which would bring the T Third line from South-of-Market to Downtown, Union Square and Chinatown, will soon begin construction with completion scheduled for Regional providers have also improved transit connections between San Francisco and other parts of the Bay Area. For example, BART has opened extensions from Bay Fair to Dublin/Pleasanton, from Concord to Pittsburg/Bay Point and from Daly City to the San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae. Caltrain has implemented Baby Bullet express service that has shortened travel time between San Francisco and San Jose to less than one hour on selected trips. Both rail services are recording record ridership DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 23 of 96

26 After more than half a century of a steady climb, automobile ownership (autos, trucks, trailers and motorcycles) rates in San Francisco already one of the lowest in the nation appear to have leveled off at approximately 470 registered automobiles per 1,000 residents. Saturation of the road network, limited parking, the costs of ownership and investments in transit infrastructure have likely contributed to this trend. Despite these positive trends, SFMTA transit ridership is lower now than in 1990, which has contributed to higher transportation sector GHG emissions. A likely factor in this ridership loss has been the continued decentralization of the Bay Area, including the proliferation of Peninsula and Silicon Valley jobs held by San Franciscans. In addition, the SFMTA and its predecessor organization have faced many financial challenges since In August 2005, in order to achieve a net savings of $3.5 million to balance the budget, SFMTA reduced service on over 30 routes either by lengthening the wait between vehicles, shortening hours of operation or eliminating route segments DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 24 of 96

27 The Transit Effectiveness Project The TEP is the first comprehensive effort in over 25 years to review Muni service and to recommend ways to transform it into a faster, more reliable and more efficient public transit system for San Francisco. Launched in May 2006, the TEP has gathered an unprecedented level of ridership data, studied best practices from other transit systems and conducted extensive public outreach to community stakeholders, policy makers and SFMTA employees. Informed by these efforts, the TEP developed a set of preliminary proposals designed to improve reliability, reduce travel delay and update routes to better meet current and projected travel patterns throughout the City. In spring 2008 TEP draft recommendations were reviewed with a broad cross-section of stakeholders through a series of 11 citywide workshops and over 100 briefings to community groups, SFMTA employees, elected officials, fellow City agencies and other interested stakeholders. After refining the proposals to incorporate valuable feedback, the SFMTA s Board of Directors endorsed the TEP recommendations in October Route changes may be implemented as early as July 2009, following any requisite environmental assessments. Muni faces many challenges including changing travel patterns, increasing costs and operational and physical constraints that affect on-time performance. The TEP has developed both an operating budget neutral and enhanced plan to reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) by improving service efficiency, transit connections and service frequency. Under the operating budget neutral plan, enhancements along Rapid and other selected routes are balanced out by service reductions elsewhere. While no additional operating funding would be required, this base TEP scenario will still require approximately $200 million in capital improvements. The TEP has proposed four route categories with different service characteristics, illustrated in the map below: Rapid (red) Carrying approximately 75 percent of current ridership, these routes would offer the fastest service and highest capacity. Vehicles would operate every five to 10 minutes during the day and every 10 to 20 minutes during the evening. Local (green) Supplementing the Rapid routes to form the core transit network, local routes would generally operate every 10 to 20 minutes during the day and every 20 to 30 minutes during the evening. Community Connectors (yellow) Filling gaps in coverage, particularly in the hilly areas, community circulators would operate every 15 to 30 minutes during the day and every 30 minutes during the evening (some routes would not operate past 9 p.m.). Specialized Services (blue) These routes would address focused needs, which include peakperiod express routes and service to regional transit. The TEP operating budget neutral scenario, which assumes a reorganized route structure but no net service increase, could raise weekday ridership by an additional 72,000, or nine percent, over 2015 baseline levels. The TEP enhanced scenario, which represents a net 25 percent service growth, could increase weekday ridership by 132,000, or 14 percent, over 2015 baseline levels. 17 Conservatively, this represents a modal shift towards transit of approximately one to two percentage points. The SFMTA will also be reviewing the transit system route-by-route to identify physical changes that could speed up service and improve reliability. Improvements may include dedicated bus lanes, bus bulbs to speed loading, signal prioritization and stop consolidation or relocation. Faster service would potentially 17 Systemwide ridership is projected to increase due to the concentration of resources on high-ridership routes; however, ridership may decrease in areas or times of day when service is eliminated, frequency is reduced or hours of operation are shortened DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 25 of 96

28 allow the SFMTA to reduce the number of vehicles assigned to certain routes and redeploy these resources elsewhere in the network. Next Bus The NextBus information system provides actual, real time arrival information for transit riders, updated at regular intervals. NextBus uses satellite technology and advanced computer modeling to track vehicles on their routes. Each vehicle is fitted with a satellite tracking system. Taking into account the actual position of the buses, intended stops and typical traffic patterns, NextBus can estimate vehicle arrivals with a high degree of accuracy. This estimate is updated constantly. The predictions are then made available on the World Wide Web and to wireless devices including electronic signs at bus stops and internet capable cell phones, Palm Pilots and other Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs). 18 Signal Priority Project Giving transit priority over other vehicles at signalized locations recognizes Muni's need for greater efficiency in the use of roadway space. With the SFMTA s new advanced traffic signal system, improved priority for transit can be given in signal timing. A green light can minimize delays and restrictions caused by other traffic sharing the same roadway as transit vehicles. Transit priority helps Muni improve on-time performance and reliability and increases Muni's modal share of the travel market by decreasing travel times. Transit signal priority can be applied along transit preferential streets and other streets to help them run more efficiently. Application of transit signal priority has been implemented extensively on the Third Street Light Rail Line, Mission Street and Geary Street and is being studied for implementation along other prioritized transit corridors. 18 NextBus: DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 26 of 96

29 Regional Transit Connections and Commuter Resources: SFMTA Customer Service Center The SFMTA Customer Service Center is located at 11 South Van Ness Avenue near Market Street in San Francisco. Customers can pay parking citations, attend tow and citation hearings, obtain parking permits and purchase Muni passes and parking meter cards. TransLink The TransLink card is designed to make the daily transit commute easy, convenient and secure. Currently available on AC Transit, Dumbarton Express and Golden Gate Transit buses and ferries, the TransLink card will ultimately be available on all transit systems in the nine-county Bay Area. The TransLink card keeps track of card value and automatically deducts the correct fare (including transfers and discounts). The TransLink card allows customers to: Stop carrying multiple forms of payment (exact change, tickets or passes); Automatically add value when balance is low with Autoload; Replace registered cards and restore the card's balance for a small fee in the event of card loss, theft or damage; Board the bus, train or ferry faster The San Francisco 311 Customer Service Center is the primary point of contact for City and County of San Francisco government general services. The 311 Customer Service Center provides a prompt, courteous and professional customer service 24 hours a day to San Francisco residents, visitors and businesses seeking general information and services from the City. 311 serves provides one-stop-shopping for information and service requests. The service center continually integrates updated information from across City government and enables improved government service delivery through performance reporting and analysis. In addition, the service center supports emergency response for the government and community through information and communications. A service request number is provided to the caller so that the status of their request can be tracked and updated. 311 customer services include: addressing transit and streetscape related requests such as information on Muni route information; Muni complaints and compliments; Muni lost and found; taxi lost and found; pothole repair; Illegal signs; street cleaning; illegal dumping; sidewalk defects; and broken newspaper racks is a free phone and Web service that consolidates Bay Area transportation information into a one-stop resource. 511 provides up-to-the-minute information on traffic conditions, incidents and driving times, schedule, route and fare information for the Bay Area s public transportation services, instant carpool and vanpool referrals, bicycling information and more. It is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 511 provides information for the following transit agencies: Muni, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, Caltrain, Valley Transit Authority, BART, SamTrans and paratransit services. The 511 phone service is available in the nine Bay Area counties of San Francisco, Alameda, Napa, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Solano, Marin, San Mateo and Sonoma TransLink: 20 About 311: S.F. Bay Area Overview: DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 27 of 96

30 SFgo SFgo is the City's new Integrated Transportation Management System led by the SFMTA s Division of Parking and Traffic (DPT). Phases of the project will be implemented over the next several years to make the City s streets more effective and safer through the use of proven technologies and strategies. Travelers can expect signals that respond to the actual volume of traffic on a roadway, faster response by City personnel clearing an incident, real-time information on travel conditions and improved coordination between all modes of transportation. The program complements San Francisco's Transit First Policy by helping to preserve and enhance the City's alternate modes of transportation. There are several initiatives in use or under development that will be able to use the SFgo system: Communications System Infrastructure: expansion of fiber optic network Transit Signal Priority: Giving transit priority over cars at signalized locations Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements: monitoring street congestion and traffic Real-Time Traveler Information: Sharing traffic information with the public Special Events and Incident Management: Monitoring changes to traffic conditions Emergency Management: Developing emergency response plans Parking Guidance System: Operating variable message signs to assist drivers 22 Supplemental Transit Services The SFMTA works with many private and non-sfmta shuttles to help provide service between major hubs. These include San Francisco State University shuttles and Bauer limousine buses. Bicycling The mission of the San Francisco Bicycle Program is to provide objective and professional service to improve and enhance bicycling as a safe, viable transportation option. The SFMTA does this through planning, engineering, implementing bicycle facilities and educating the community and agencies about bicycle transportation and safety. The vision of the Bicycle Program is to make San Francisco the North American city with the highest percapita bicycle use and to have a continually improving bicycle network that is safe and convenient for everyone who chooses to bicycle for transportation and recreation. The number of people who commute to work by bicycle in San Francisco doubled between 1990 and 2000 and continues to grow. Citywide bicycle counts showed further significant increases in bicycle traffic in 2006 and The Bicycle Program takes an active role in educating cyclists how to ride safely on City streets. The Bicycle Program strives to promote safe and secure bicycle parking to complement the growing bicycle network. The Bicycle Program has successfully implemented many projects, including striping over 40 miles of bicycle lanes, creating 23 miles of bicycle paths, posting 82 miles of signed bicycle routes and painting 1,250 shared lane markings known as sharrows. There are approximately 62 projects in the SF Bicycle Plan Environmental Impact Report that is currently underway, including: Bike lanes Shared pavement arrows Wide right lanes Bike paths Special signal design/detection/timing for bikes Informational brochures 22 SFgo overview: DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 28 of 96

31 Bicycles on buses: Bike racks, capable of holding two bicycles, are installed on all SFMTA buses. Bicycle parking: Seventeen SFMTA parking garages currently provide bicycle parking. There are bicycle storage lockers at six of the garages. Parking at bicycle racks is free of charge, while there is an annual charge of $75 to rent the bicycle lockers. Pedestrian Program The SFMTA s Pedestrian Program's mission is to promote walking as a sustainable and healthy mode of transportation and to reduce pedestrian collisions in San Francisco. Current pedestrian program projects focus on safety, accessibility and convenience. Many pedestrian program projects are funded through the Proposition K half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements, approved by voters in Key pedestrian projects include: Better Streets Plan The Better Streets Plan will create a unified set of standards, guidelines and implementation strategies to govern how the City designs, builds and maintains its pedestrian environment. The Better Streets Plan brings together staff of multiple City agencies to comprehensively plan for streets. The Plan will seek to balance the needs of all street users, with a particular focus on the pedestrian environment and how streets can be used as public space. The plan will reflect the understanding that the pedestrian environment is about much more than just transportation. Streets serve a multitude of social, recreational and ecological needs that must be considered when deciding on the most appropriate design. The Better Streets Plan will carry out the intent of San Francisco's Better Streets Policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors on February 6, Pedestrian Traffic Signals The SFMTA has installed many pedestrian traffic signals and has an ongoing, prioritized plan for upgrading signals. A pilot program to test the effectiveness of pedestrian countdown signals was conducted in 2001 at 14 intersections and the results were very positive,. Moreover, public surveys found that pedestrians were very supportive of the countdown devices because they provided clearer information on the amount of time left to cross the street safely. As of November 2008 there were 755 intersections with countdown signals in the City for all crossings, 179 intersections with countdowns for some crossings, 179 intersections with no countdown signals and 50 intersections with upcoming projects that will include installing new countdown signals for all crossings. The countdown signals have been shown to reduce pedestrian collision by 25 percent. Accessible Pedestrian Signals Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) provide a pedestrian pushbutton that communicates when to cross the street in a non-visual manner, such as audible tones, speech messages and vibrating surfaces. Currently, 54 intersections across the City have APS devices. The SFMTA is designing APS devices for another 60 intersections and will continue expanding this program in years to come DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 29 of 96

32 Golden Gate Park Pedestrian Improvements The Pedestrian Improvements Study was part of the overall Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) called for by the Concourse Authority under Section 8 of Proposition J, the 1998 voter-passed Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act of The study provides a framework for pedestrian access and circulation improvements in the park for the next several years. The study outlines planning criteria with goals and objectives for pedestrian improvements consistent with the adopted Golden Gate Park Master Plan (July 9, 1998). Based on the planning criteria, input from the Recreation and Park Department staff, DPT site observations and identified safety issues the Study suggests specific projects to be considered for implementation. Following public review and input, a Final Pedestrian Improvements Implementation Plan was approved by the Concourse Authority and Recreation and Park Commission. The Implementation Plan focuses on high priority, short-range and medium-range projects that are more promising for funding and implementation. The Concourse Authority will work with City departments to prepare grant applications for funding the highest priority actions. Implementation of the improvement measures would use a combination of private and public money, using private funds to leverage public matching grants. An application for Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (RBPP) funds to implement selected projects was approved in 2008 by the SFCTA. School Safety The SFMTA continues to apply for and implement federal and state grants to upgrade school area warning signs and pavement striping, to construct traffic calming devices and to work with schools on a comprehensive approach to increasing traffic safety. Specific projects include: upgrading school crosswalks to yellow, ladder-style crosswalks, replacing traditional yellow warning signs with fluorescent yellow-green warning signs, Safe Routes to Schools projects at Flynn Elementary, San Francisco Community Alternative School & Monroe Elementary, Marshall Elementary, and Buena Vista Elementary and grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety. The SFTMA also: Responds to traffic and pedestrian safety concerns related to schools Evaluates intersections for adult school crossing guards Coordinates the approval and installation of school bus and passenger loading (white) zones; Works with individual schools to develop traffic circulation plans Coordinates with San Francisco Unified School District and other City departments on multijurisdictional issues Parking Authority The SFMTA Parking Authority operates 20 parking garages with approximately 14,296 parking spaces, as well as 20 metered off-street parking lots throughout the City. Most garages and lots are located in retail areas and are designed and priced to primarily serve the short-term parking needs of shoppers. In order to help reduce transportation sector emissions, many garages provide electric vehicle chargers, reduced rates for carpool parking, free bicycle parking spaces, reduced rate motorcycle parking and carshare parking spaces. Bicycle parking has been covered in the previous section, while the other programs are described below. Electric Vehicle Chargers Twelve of the twenty SFMTA parking garages provide electric vehicle chargers. Each garage has one inductive and one conductive charger. While charging is free, patrons must still pay posted parking rates. Usage varies from daily at some facilities to never at others. The latest industry development is in standardizing EV chargers so that all chargers work on all future vehicle makes and models. Standard voltage will be DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 30 of 96

33 Reduced Rate Carpool Parking As an incentive to encourage ridesharing, 17 of the 20 SFMTA-operated parking garages provide reduced monthly parking rates for carpools. Vehicles must have at least three persons per car at all times to qualify for the carpool rate. Monthly carpool rates are generally about half the regular monthly parking rate. For example, at the Union Square and Sutter-Stockton Garages, the regular rate is $375 per month, while the carpool rate is $185 per month. There are currently 140 carpools taking advantage of the monthly carpool rate citywide. Motorcycle Parking Motorcycles can be a more fuel efficient alternative to passenger cars. Reduced-rate motorcycle parking is provided at eight of the 20 SFMTA operated parking garages. This is an early model for potential green vehicle parking incentives. Motorcycle parking rates are generally about 20 percent of the long-term parking rates for automobiles. For example, the flat rate for motorcycle parking in the Fifth and Mission Garage is $5 per day, compared to $25 for automobile parking for seven to 12 hours. Monthly parking rates for motorcycles at the Fifth and Mission Garage are $70 compared to a regular monthly rate of $300 for autos. Carshare Parking Carsharing allows people to forego auto ownership in favor of having access to a shared car for those occasions when they need a car. Four garages currently provide reduced rate parking for carshare vehicles: Fifth/Mission, Golden Gateway, Performing Arts and Vallejo Street. Monthly rates for carshare vehicles are generally about half the regular monthly rate. There are currently 34 carshare vehicles using the garages DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 31 of 96

34 B. Transit and Non-Revenue Vehicle Fleets The most significant way that the SFMTA helps to reduce pollution is by providing safe, reliable public transportation service. The SFMTA also demonstrates its commitment to clean air by operating lowpollution vehicles. The SFMTA currently has the lowest per-passenger emissions of any transit agency in California, and the goal is zero emissions by Presently, the SFMTA operates: Largest zero emissions bus fleet in the country and the second largest alternative fuel bus fleet in California (331 electric trolley buses) Largest municipal B20 biodiesel transit fleet in the country (587 vehicles including non-revenue) Third largest hybrid bus fleet in the country (86 buses) Fifty-one percent of the SFMTA s 1,045 transit vehicles are zero emission (light rail, historic streetcars, electric trolley buses and cable cars). Forty percent of the SFMTA s 842 buses are zero emissions (electric trolley buses). All of the remaining transit buses are fueled with biodiesel, including hybrid buses. Additionally, 35 paratransit vehicles are fueled with biodiesel. The electricity on which the zero emission vehicles run is generated by the City s hydroelectric power plant, a non-polluting source of renewable energy. Footprint The SFMTA used 4.84 million gallons of fuel in FY 2007/08 to fuel revenue vehicles. This compares to an average of 5.63 million gallons for the previous five years. This represents a 14 percent reduction in recent fuel use, primarily due to the introduction of fuel efficient hybrid buses; but it s important to note that it s also despite the slightly increased fuel use introduced by PM+NOx reduction devices, 23 and the slightly lower fuel economy resulting from the use of a 20 percent biodiesel blend fleetwide Cleaire Longview PM+NOx reduction devices tap into the engine s fuel system to inject small amount of fuel into the catalytic chamber to reduce NOx emissions. 24 Biodiesel has a slightly lower energy (BTU) content compared to conventional diesel DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 32 of 96

35 The SFMTA operates four types of zero-emission vehicles, consisting of more than half of the Muni transit fleet. Clockwise from top left: electric trolley buses, cable cars, light rail vehicles and historic streetcars Fuel use by revenue vehicles is the single largest contributor to the SFMTA s agency footprint. The purchase of hybrid buses, offering fuel economy increases above 25 percent, and the longer term conversion to electric buses are the keys to reducing total fuel usage. It is important to note that since 1990 the SFMTA s bus fleet has increased by 17 buses. Further success in service expansion will also translate to a larger overall fuel footprint. The goal is to reduce fuel use per SFMTA VMT. This is accomplished through a mode shift to an all-electric fleet by 2020 (see Clean Air Plan, page 36). The following charts show the SFMTA s vehicle mode spilt versus citywide municipal vehicle modes DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 33 of 96

36 SFMTA vehicles by fuel type: Clearly, the SFMTA s non-revenue fleet is an area that can be improved; however, many of these vehicles are specialty vehicles such as parking control vehicles and heavy-duty transit maintenance vehicles which typically offer very few alternatives in terms of fuel type and mode conversion. Over 70 percent of DPT s 462 vehicle fleet are parking control vehicles. For comparison, below is the citywide municipal fleet summary by fuel type. Seventy-two percent of the citywide municipal fleet is made up of cars, pickups, SUVs and vans DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 34 of 96

37 Reduction measures This section details measures in both transit vehicles and non-revenue vehicles. Transit Vehicles Projects and improvements order of implementation: Automatic Vehicle Location System (NextBus) Project This project helps reduce citywide emissions by providing a GPS based, real-time information, customer service and a management system for all of the SFMTA s current revenue modes, therefore helping to encourage increased ridership and reduced private vehicle miles and traffic congestion. Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems are used to provide real-time vehicle location information and arrival predictions to transit customers. AVL systems are also used to assist operations managers in recovery from service disruptions as they allow line managers to receive continuous updates of vehicle locations. Archived AVL data also provides the basis for performance and schedule adherence analysis and reporting Alternative Fuel Pilot Program (AFPP) Muni s modern emissions-reduction programs were borne out of an agreement between the SFCTA and Muni. In March 2001 SFCTA attached the Alternative Fuel Pilot Program (AFPP) as a condition to SFCTA Resolution 01-08, which authorized Muni s purchase of Neoplan diesel buses. The AFPP was designed by Muni with SF Environment and UC Berkeley to allow Muni to identify the most appropriate low emissions bus technology to work within the constraints of San Francisco s unique terrain and duty cycle performance demands. Additionally, the program was designed to allow Muni to identify associated facility support requirements. Formal data were collected for two years on eight buses representing four categories of transit bus technology: diesel hybrid, CNG, conventional diesel with exhaust after treatment and baseline conventional diesel. Additionally, informal evaluations were performed on LNG, battery-electric and gasoline hybrid bus DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 35 of 96

38 technologies. The data were examined to determine the impact of the various characteristics of each bus technology to Muni, such as performance, emissions, reliability factors, cost per mile, capital costs for the buses and facilities improvements, any safety concerns and operator and customer feedback. The AFPP was also designed to ensure that Muni would become experienced at adapting to and operating with the newest and least polluting bus technologies while posing the least risk to Muni s ability to meet service standards required by Proposition E. UC Davis Institute for Transportation Studies (ITS) assisted with major program testing, including the design of an unprecedented heavy-duty chassis dynamometer emissions cycle that simulated grades and San Francisco s specific duty cycle. The final deliverable from the AFPP was the 2004 Clean Air Plan Clean Air Plan The SFMTA s Clean Air Plan Zero Emissions 2020, released jointly with the SF Department of Environment, was unveiled by Mayor Newsom in February 2004 and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in The Clean Air Plan represents the first major revision of Muni s original 1996 plan for clean air captured in the 1997 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) Fleet Program. This original plan called for complete replacement of all active, pre-1996 buses by The plan was successful in reducing particulate matter emissions by 88 percent from 1997 to 2003, though the goal of 100 percent replacement of old buses was not fully met until This reduced particulate matter emissions by 99 percent compared to 1997 levels. Muni s 2020 zero emission fleet will be comprised of: Electric trolley buses Fuel cell and/or battery-electric buses Light Rail Vehicles Historic streetcars Cable Cars. For almost 70 years, Muni has continuously operated a network of zero emission cable cars, streetcars, electric trolley buses and modern light rail vehicles. These electric vehicles not only make Muni the cleanest transit system in California today by CARB standards, they also position Muni to continue its leadership with an all-electric fleet by The main point of emphasis in the Clean Air Plan is the overall fleet turnover and cleanup strategy itself - not necessarily the associated dates, which were derived through considerable research, but are very much subject to industry progress, market development and other variables. The Clean Air Plan details SFMTA s three-pronged strategy to reduce fleet emissions: 1. Maximize the use of Zero Emission Buses 2. Replace conventional diesel buses with hybrids as a bridge technology to fuel cells 3. Clean up the remaining fleet with best available retrofit technologies and alternative fuels In addition to the 2006 purchase of 86 hybrid buses, the Clean Air Plan specifically called for: Installation of exhaust after-treatment devices on all 374 modern diesel engines (completed) Use of biodiesel in all diesel vehicles (done; the Mayor s EO required this in 2007) Rehabilitation of remaining 1991 articulated buses, bringing them up to current diesel bus standards with modern engines and exhaust after-treatment (six of these buses remain all in the reserve fleet and none has been retrofitted to date as funding was diverted to crucial and nonfunded revenue service vehicle repairs) Completion of the Islais Creek motor coach division to support lighter than air fuel technologies (2012) DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 36 of 96

39 1. Maximize the Use of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) Expand Existing Electric ZEVs: Transit vehicle emissions are at their absolute minimum with an electric bus or rail vehicle running on hydroelectric power, as is the case in San Francisco. Muni ZEVs currently include roughly 550 electric buses, light rail vehicles, historic streetcars and cable cars. Muni has as many zero emission buses (331) as all other transit agencies in the United States combined. Over half of Muni passenger trips (57 percent) are on ZEVs roughly 400,000 passenger trips per day Muni s existing zero-emission electric network of cable cars, trolley buses, light rail vehicles and historic streetcars Focus on Fuel Cell and Battery-Electric Buses for the Future: Six prototype fuel cell buses have been evaluated in the Bay Area during the past five years as part of CARB s Zero Emission Bus Demonstration Program. An Advanced Demonstration Program is now in the procurement phase. Twelve new fuel cell buses will be tested for at least three years in the Bay Area, shared by all major agencies. Another zero emission alternative for Muni is full-size, battery-powered buses, although these vehicles are currently limited by travel range and battery life. While these technologies may not be available as a viable, large-procurement option for another decade, battery-electric and fuel-cell powered buses could eventually do away with the need for overhead contact wires and an immediate dependence on grid provided electricity, allowing Muni to replace all conventional and hybrid buses with zero-emission technologies. This will fully eliminate transit fleet vehicle emissions DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 37 of 96

40 2. Replace Conventional Diesel Buses with Electric Drive Buses San Francisco s demanding operating environment and long history of operating electric trolley coaches puts Muni in a unique position to help lead the industry in the adoption of electric drive systems. For the majority of U.S. properties, hybrid buses are being chosen as the most appropriate electric bus technology because of their ability to be integrated without additional infrastructure. Like all forms of electric buses, hybrids provide greater power, less noise, fuel savings and lower emissions than conventional diesel or natural gas buses. In general, the difference between electric bus technologies, including fuel cells, is in their source of electric power. A trolley bus uses overhead contact wires; a hybrid bus uses an engine and generator; a battery-electric bus uses batteries; and a fuel cell bus uses a fuel cell everything else on the bus is essentially identical. This positions electric drive technologies as an ideal foundation for different service applications and bridging technologies Update Remaining Diesel Buses to State-of-the-Art Clean-Diesel Standards For the existing 425 active and reserve fleet buses that were not replaced by hybrids and are not eligible for replacement funding until 2013, the following emissions reduction updates were completed in 2007: PM/NOx reduction devices were installed fleetwide Modern engines were installed in older chassis for the reserve fleet All motor coaches are fueled with biodiesel 2006 Biodiesel Implementation In accordance with the Mayor s Executive Directive Biodiesel for Municipal Fleets, the SFMTA fuels all diesel vehicles with B20 (20 percent biodiesel blended with 80 percent conventional diesel). No biodiesel-related vehicle reliability problems have occurred to date and none are anticipated, due to industry- leading fuel handling quality assurance and fuel source quality control. B20 reduces criteria pollutant and GHG emissions as well as the health risks associated with petroleum diesel. B20 reduces carbon monoxide by 12 percent, particulate matter by 18 percent, carbon dioxide by 15 percent and nitrogen oxide remains neutral. SFMTA and the City give preference to sustainably produced biofuels that meet ASTM D-6751 standards for use in diesel engines with a preference for local feedstock when available from sources including recycled fats, oil and grease and rendered animal fats and crops that can be cultivated on marginal or distressed lands under low-irrigation and low fertilization or rotated with other crops (including cover crops). Biodiesel that comes from industrial crops that compete with valuable food cropland, or contribute to deforestation, also are avoided. Instead, preference is given to biodiesel that maintains a favorable energy balance and that is produced by utilizing technologies or feedstocks that strive for net-zero waste and emissions Compound Fuel Cell Hybrid (CFCH) Bus Demonstration Project The Compound Fuel Cell Hybrid bus demonstration project is part of a national fuel cell initiative sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The purpose of the initiative is to demonstrate fuel cell technologies that can be readily commercialized and put into production. The program features an Orion VII Next-Generation hybrid bus that is otherwise identical to SFMTA s 86 existing Orion VII hybrid buses. The bus is painted in SFMTA colors and will go into one year of revenue service as part of the demonstration 25 For example, current hybrid buses can be upgraded in the future to fuel cell buses. Also, next generation hybrid buses can be potentially configured as trolley bus hybrids in order to use trolley bus infrastructure when possible while maintaining motor coach service flexibility. Market Street motor coach routes are one case where this could apply DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 38 of 96

41 phase of the program. The SFMTA will partner with BAE Systems in maintaining the bus and in helping with data collection. The bus has already undergone initial testing in its stock configuration to establish a performance baseline for the many changes to being made. It will be outfitted with a Lithium-Ion Energy Storage System (ESS), an updated Integrated Starter Generator (ISG) and a new Propulsion Control System (PCS) as part of the next generation 2010 BAE hybrid propulsion system. Finally the bus will receive hydrogen storage tanks, two small Hydrogenics fuel cells, electrically powered accessories and all of the associated electronics and data acquisition equipment as the final part of its conversion. When fully converted the bus will demonstrate the use of hydrogen-fuel-cell-generated electrical power to operate all of the vehicle accessories including air conditioning (existing SFMTA buses do not include air conditioning), power steering, air compressor, pumps, fans and lighting. This will allow the bus diesel engine to shut off whenever the bus is stopped and to remain off until needed. Additionally, the lithium-ion energy storage system will allow the engine to remain off even during short start-stop driving periods in congested downtown areas. This operational scenario will help to reduce diesel fuel (B20) usage, reduce emissions further, and reduce noise pollution. In addition to demonstrating fuel cells, the bus will serve as a test bed for a variety of electrically operated accessory technologies and engine control strategies that can potentially be adapted to existing conventional and hybrid buses Advanced Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration Project This second-phase program is a continuation of AC Transit s already successful Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration Project. 26 As with the initial program, the SFMTA already operates the country s largest ZEB fleet, and so San Francisco s participation in this Advanced Fuel Cell Demonstration Project is voluntary. AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, SamTrans, and VTA are CARB-mandatory participants. For the advanced demonstration, AC Transit is the lead agency and will procure 12 fuel cell buses and construct the necessary supporting infrastructure. The SFMTA will operate one or more of these buses in revenue service for at least one year in order to gain San Francisco-specific experience with the technology that will be extremely valuable in terms of better preparing to meet Clean Air Plan goals. The SFMTA will take the fuel cell buses to AC Transit s Division 4 maintenance facility in Oakland for fueling (also see Hydrogen Fuel Station summary in Next Steps) and for any significant maintenance. Operations and maintenance personnel will be trained by AC Transit. Non-Revenue Vehicles Appropriate route planning and reasonable driving habits are the foundation of non-revenue vehicle fleet emissions reductions. Educating employees on green driving techniques is an area that the SFMTA will emphasize. City policy requires that 25 percent of new vehicle purchases be made up of alternative fuel vehicles, and the SF Department of the Environment provides and regularly updates their Green Vehicle Guide in order to 26 Details on the AC Transit and other fuel cell bus programs can be found in The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 2008 report on the current status of fuel cell buses in the United States: This report, which is an update to one published in 2007, reviews fuel cell bus technology development and demonstration, specifically focusing on experiences and progress in the United States. The NREL review encompasses results from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/NREL fuel cell bus evaluations as well as plans for the FTA s National Fuel Cell Bus Program. The primary focus of the report is a descriptive comparison of fuel cell transit bus operations in the United States and on the industry s need to continue successful implementations of these advanced technologies DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 39 of 96

42 assist with light-duty vehicle procurements. Fleet turnover decreases emissions, increases fuel savings and lowers maintenance costs. The SFMTA will collaborate with other City departments in providing departmental fleet inventory data to the Department of Administrative Services as part of the external, citywide fleet analysis being conducted in FY This information will include: Vehicle year, make, model, class Mileage data from maintenance and fueling Fuel usage data by fuel type (gasoline, biodiesel, CNG, propane, electric) Over 1,000 non-revenue vehicles are currently operated by the Muni and DPT, including 76 that are fueled with biodiesel. Maintenance of non-revenue vehicles is performed at the SFMTA s Scott Street division. This work includes regular vehicle maintenance in order to optimize fuel efficiency and vehicle performance. The primary task in non-revenue vehicle purchasing is selecting and specifying appropriate vehicles for the intended application. Chapter 4 of the Environment Code, Healthy Air and Smog Prevention Ordinance, requires City departments to plan for the retirement of older vehicles. Further, Fifty-six SFMTA non-revenue vehicles are subject to CARB regulations that require all transit agencies to reduce diesel Transit Fleet Vehicle (nonrevenue) particulate matter (PM) by 80 percent in 2010 based on 2005 emission totals. Interim reductions include a 40 percent PM reduction and 3.2 NOx (oxides of nitrogen) average for Short of replacement, the agency must show that the best available technology has been retrofitted on each vehicle subject to the regulations. The SFMTA is using biodiesel in these vehicles while retrofit or replacement funding becomes available. Most of these vehicles are specialty vehicles used for track and other system maintenance. The Parking and Traffic and Enforcement Divisions operate 453 vehicles. The Traffic Signal Shop, Sign Shop, Paint Shop and Parking Meter Shop operate a fleet of 89 light trucks and vans and two large trucks. The Division has 72 passenger cars that support the operation of the shops and the Traffic Engineering operation. The Enforcement Division s fleet is largely made up of three-wheeled Cushman or GO-4 vehicles used by Parking Control Officers. Twenty-six of the scooters are CNG powered, while 222 are gasoline powered. The Enforcement Division also has 46 gasoline powered passenger cars and trucks. The Enforcement Division has experimented with electric-powered scooters DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 40 of 96

43 C. Facilities and Infrastructure Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Footprint DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 41 of 96

44 Current reduction measures MECA Audit In order to help address potential waste, beginning this year the Mayor s Energy Conservation Account (MECA) requires an internal audit to be formally submitted in order to release the last 25 percent of each department s energy budget. The internal audit will include capital improvements as well as best practices such as energy conservation in computers and other technology hardware. PUC Energy Audit The SFMTA will receive detailed energy audit information and corresponding recommendations sometime in This list of recommendations will be the primary tools used to reduce City-owned agency infrastructure energy use. Real Estate Department Audit and Improvements As part of the Real Estate Department s Climate Action Plan, multi-tenant City buildings under Real Estate's jurisdiction will be reported in terms of energy use. For the SFMTA, One South Van Ness and 875 Stevenson are included. These building are therefore not included in SFMTA s specific plans and totals. SFMTA Real Estate and Facility Management The SFTMA will continue to advance and develop its TOD program to optimize properties owned, including parking lots, as candidates for TOD and related revenue generation strategies. Light Emitting Diode (LED) Traffic Signal Conversion In 2002, the DPT initiated a program to convert all traffic signal lamps from incandescent power to LED technology. This entailed converting a total of over 30,000 red, yellow and green traffic signal lamps and approximately 6,500 pedestrian WALK/DON T WALK signal lamps to LEDs. As a result of this program, the annual energy consumption required to operate the City s 1,168 signalized intersections declined from 11,220,000 kilowatt hours per year to 1,803,000 kilowatt hours per year, a reduction of 9,417,000 kilowatt hours per year, or an 84 percent decrease. Solar Installations The SFMTA s Islais Creek Bus Division, currently in detailed design phase, offers an ideal solar ready City facility for a large scale installation. The facility is located in the one of the sunniest parts of the City, near Cesar Chavez and 3 rd Streets, and has been designed with a south-facing, saw tooth roof. The solar installation is currently unfunded due to solar cost-benefit calculations that use the SFMTA s subsidized electricity rate rather than the rate the additional electricity would be sold for. The outside bus parking area and adjacent employee parking areas at Islais Creek and other SFMTA facilities are also ideal for large scale solar installations The U.S. Postal facility at 1300 Evans Street, San Francisco, features a solar installation that covers the employee parking area, providing the added benefit of shade for employee vehicles DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 42 of 96

45 D. Solid Waste and Recycling In 2003 the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Mayor adopted the Municipal Environmental Code (Ordinance ). In an effort to divert energy used to harvest and process virgin resources and to conserve landfill space, the Resource Conservation Ordnance (RCO) directs all departments of the City to maximize the purchase of recycled products, reduce waste and divert as much solid waste as possible from disposal. In 2004 the Mayor signed a resolution creating a 75 percent Waste Diversion Goal by 2010 for each City department. The RCO also requires each City department to submit a Resource Conservation Plan that identifies the necessary programs and policies to obtain the ambitious 75 percent reduction goal. The RCO requires purchasing of recycled products (paper, paper towels, engine oil). The RCO also requires: A departmental compliance letter committing goals and designating responsible person Departmental Waste Assessment (DWA) documenting waste diverted and disposed Resource Conservation Plan (RCP) on how department will achieve goals An Annual Recycling Survey (ARS) reporting solid waste diversion The SFMTA recycles the following: Office paper, card board, bottles, cans (commingled recycling) Used computer equipment Used electronic devices (cell phones, computer media, batteries) All vehicle oils, fluids and vehicle batteries Metals (both vehicle parts and construction materials) Depreciated capital assets (vehicles and equipment) Carpenter shop saw dust is composted Current and future work also includes: Full implementation of paper usage reduction measures, including use of double-sided printing by copiers and printers and default settings for double-sided copying Formalizing specific programs for each operations/maintenance facility due to each location s unique challenges Formalizing standard policies and guidelines for green procurements that are in concert with the City s Office of Contract Administration and SF Department of Environment directives Internally promoting solid waste and recycling programs Establishing a well defined standard for measuring progress DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 43 of 96

46 E. Employee Commute Overview of Employee and Citywide Commute Patterns San Francisco is a highly dense, hilly city of 47 square miles with a rich transportation network of alternative transportation modes. The City also has a Transit First policy. In addition to a strong tourism industry, San Francisco has a diverse local economy highlighted by the financial, legal, medical and education sectors and the City has become an international hub for a number of pioneering industries including biotechnology, digital media and information technology, clean technology, financial and professional services, retail and hospitality. This diverse local economy attracts a large number of workers who commute into the City. According to 2006 U.S. Census data, non-san Francisco residents commuting to San Francisco totaled 522,229 and San Francisco residents commuting out of the City totaled 96,392. There are a total of 354,558 vehicles available in San Francisco households, which is 1.10 vehicle average per household. 28 The City of San Francisco has numerous policies in place that discourage automobile use. For example, the Planning Code does not require any off-street parking for most types of development in the downtown area and actively discourages the provision of off-street parking in downtown developments. The City also has a 25 percent parking tax, which significantly increases the cost of parking when it is provided. As a result, less than 20 percent of downtown workers arrive by single occupant vehicles. 29 One weakness in this policy is the State of California s lenient regulations regarding the issuance of Disabled Placards, which allow free, all-day, on-street parking to vehicles with Disabled Placards. In 2006 the State issued over 49,000 of these placards to San Francisco residents alone. 30 In September of 2007 the SF Department of the Environment completed a transportation survey of City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) employees. This study was funded in part by The Clean Air Transportation Program which has implemented a commute assistance program with CCSF employees since 1999 with the primary focus on trip reduction in an effort to alleviate traffic congestion and to improve air quality. The transportation survey had three objectives: to identify current commute trends and the percentage of those driving alone, identify the incentives to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles and determine the most preferred commute modes and satisfaction with various travel modes. The survey was distributed to 29,000 City employees and over 10 percent (3,049) responded to the survey. 31 The SFMTA will use the current SF Department of the Environment survey to revise these numbers in 2009 in order to provide updated data and trends. Employee Home Locations Almost half of City employees reside in San Francisco (47 percent) with the rest (53 percent) residing in neighboring counties in the Bay Area region, predominantly in San Mateo, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and Solano counties. Almost half the respondents commute over 15 miles one-way to reach their work location and nearly 30 percent of commuters spend minutes one-way to reach their work destination. Roughly 10 percent spend over an hour daily to get to work. Greater than 80 percent of employees work a full-time (40 hours per week) schedule followed by approximately nine percent who work a compressed week (9/80) schedule. Over 50 percent of survey respondents start their work schedule between 7:30am- 8:30am, and 67 percent of survey respondents end their work during the afternoon commute time of 4:30-6:30pm. 28 SF Transportation Fact Sheet, May SFMTA. 29 Citywide Travel Behavior Study, City Planning Department, Department of Motor Vehicles 31 Department of The Environment City and County of San Francisco, SF City Employee Commute Survey, Analysis of Survey Results. Prepared by Clean Air Transportation Program and Department of the Environments with support from SF County Transportation Authority. September, pgs. 2,5-11,12, DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 44 of 96

47 The chart below displays the travel modes used to get home from work by City employees (the chart for getting to work is nearly identical). Nearly 40 percent drive alone each day and telecommuting is the least used commute mode. BART (23 percent) and bus (20 percent) are the most popular driving alternatives followed by carpooling by a little over 10 percent of survey respondents. Use of travel modes during the week is fairly consistent except on Fridays when drive alone rate increases slightly. Carpooling is one of the three most popular driving alternatives used by City employees. In comparison, vanpools are used by only a small percentage of City employees. Current trip reduction measures SFMTA Employee Commuter Benefits Employee badges serve as a free transit pass for all SFMTA employees as an incentive for employees to ride public transit and not drive a vehicle to work. Additionally, passes are provided to transit operator family members. The SFMTA offers a compressed work week pilot program (9/80) that is advantageous for employees that need to commute long distances from their homes to their place of work and would prefer to work four 10- hour days and every other Friday instead of commuting five days a week to work. Telecommuting is a desirable option for employees who need to work from home and have tasks that can be performed via telephone or computer and do not need to be physically present in the office to complete their job objectives. This is useful for employees that must commute long distances from home to work and would like to save time and reduce their transportation expenses and reduce vehicle emissions DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 45 of 96

48 Teleconferencing and videoconferencing from work are two tools that are offered to employees if project objectives can be completed using these tools. These practices reduce the need for employees to travel to other offices in the City, the Bay Area region or farther to attend meetings. City and County of San Francisco Employee Commuter Benefits Commuters who take the bus, train, ferry or vanpool to work can save up to 40 percent on their commuting expenses. The federal government allows employees to deduct up to $120 per month from their paychecks pre-tax to pay for transit and vanpool expenses. Employees save by using pre-tax dollars for their commute expenses, and employers get the advantage of reduced payroll taxes and a popular benefit program that's easy and inexpensive to administer. Thousands of employers in San Francisco and across the country are already offering commuter benefits to their employees. The City and County of San Francisco offers commuter benefits to approximately 30,000 employees; more than 15 percent are enrolled. Effective January 19, 2009 all employers in San Francisco that have 20 or more employees are required to offer a commuter benefits program. 32 Nearly 60,000 commuters have signed up for the Emergency Ride Home program, a free ride home in case of an emergency for employees who choose driving alternatives for their commute to work. By providing significant cost savings, commuter benefits encourage people to use transit and vanpools to get to work. This helps to relieve traffic congestion and to reduce air pollution. 33 The SFMTA will also work with the SF Department of Environment to implement the City s Bicycle Fleet Program which replaces employee work-related trips with bicycles. Spare the Air Days Eliminating fares has been demonstrated to increase transit ridership. Since 2004 MTC and ABAG have sponsored several free transit days on high pollution, Spare the Air days which have resulted in significant increases in transit usage. On the two Spare the Air days in 2007 transit ridership on the 29 Bay Area public transit agencies that provided free fares increased by 23 percent. Muni ridership increased by 200,000 on each of these days, a 35 percent increase over comparable days. BART ridership increased by 5,000 riders per day, a one percent increase, while AC Transit ridership increased by 62,000 riders per day, a 27 percent increase. 34 Some transit services experienced overcrowding problems due to the increased ridership. For example, ridership on the Sausalito Ferry increased by 500 percent on some Spare the Air days, resulting in regular riders being turned away. The cost of free transit on Spare the Air days is approximately $2 million per day. This cost is subsidized by MTC and BAAQMD. 35 Due to funding limitations, there was only one free transit Spare the Air day in 2008 held on a date fixed in advance rather than on a day with high pollution. Bay Area bus systems, including Muni, were free all day, while BART, Caltrain, AC Transit and Bay Area ferries were free until 1 p.m. Free Tourist Buses The Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority operated a free intra-park shuttle bus in Golden Gate Park during weekends between May and October from 2001 through The free service was funded by BAAQMD Clean Air Program grants and by the Concourse Authority. The shuttle buses operated every SF Dept. of Environmental Commuter Benefits SF Dept. of Environment. Commuter Benefits: 34 ACE train newsletter, Nov-Dec 2007: 35 Wikipedia: DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 46 of 96

49 to 20 minutes between Stanyan and Fell Streets and the Great Highway. The service was discontinued when the grant funding ended. The use of cleaner vehicles for this service is an area that can be improved upon if additional funding for future such programs is identified. Several privately-operated bus companies also provide bus service to San Francisco visitors. Major destinations served include Union Square, Fisherman s Wharf, Chinatown, Civic Center and the Golden Gate Bridge. Vanpools 511 Rideshare, the regional ridematch agency, reports that there are 142 registered vanpools with San Francisco destinations and 22 registered vanpools that originate in San Francisco each workday. The SFMTA encourages vanpooling by allowing vanpools with permits to park all day in metered parking spaces with a time limit of 60 minutes or more without paying the meter. The Agency currently issues 97 on-street vanpool parking permits to vanpool users. 36 The cost for vanpool permits is $74 per year. Carpools The SFMTA encourages carpooling by providing on-street carpool parking permits for commuter vehicles to employees of institutions such as San Francisco General Hospital. There are three on-street carpool parking areas and 52 on-street carpool parking permits issued. 37 Carpool vehicles must have at least three people. The cost for carpool permits is $74 per year. The SFMTA works with Caltrans to sign and enforce a carpool and vanpool route to the Bay Bridge along Beale and Bryant Streets to the Sterling Street high occupancy vehicle (HOV) entrance to the Bay Bridge. This on-ramp is currently being rebuilt, which will increase the number of HOV that can enter the bridge at this point. Carpool vehicles also receive the added benefit of being able to use regional carpool lanes during commute hours. According to U.S. Census 2006 data, seven percent of San Francisco residents use carpools as a means of transportation to work. Thirteen percent of City and County of San Francisco employees use carpools or vanpools to get to work. There are currently 804 carpoolers originating in San Francisco and 1,750 carpoolers destined to San Francisco registered with 511 Rideshare. Casual Carpooling Many people commute into San Francisco each morning from the East Bay by casual carpooling. As mentioned above, the SFMTA provides carpool drop off zones on Howard Street between Fremont and First Street to facilitate safe unloading of passengers at these locations. In order to encourage casual carpooling home from San Francisco in the evening, SFMTA provides a casual carpool pick-up point on the east side of Beale Street between Howard and Folsom Streets. Approximately 200 casual carpools of three or more people each are formed each weekday between 4 and 6 p.m. at this location. The signed destinations are: Fairfield, Vallejo, Suisun, Richmond Parkway, Hercules, North Berkeley, Del Norte, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord and Oakland (Claremont Avenue or Lakeshore/Grand). These stops were established by the SFMTA in 1997 in response to a BART strike. Vallejo is the most popular casual carpooling destination out of San Francisco in the evening as carpools to this destination can take advantage of a near-continuous HOV lane on I-80 in the East Bay. Taxis In 2007 there were 1,431 taxi medallions which permit taxi drivers to operate in the City of San Francisco. There are currently not enough taxis in the City during peak periods to meet public demand and the Taxi Commission is currently studying revamping the taxi permitting system to increase supply. Another issue 36 The SFMTA, SF Transportation Fact Sheet, Vanpools, May, The SFMTA, SF Transportation Fact Sheet, Carpools, May, DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 47 of 96

50 the City is addressing is the proliferation of limousines that are serving passengers staying at City hotels. Limousines are supposed to operate only with specific private contracts but many are illegally acting as taxis and picking up passengers at City hotels. 38 Private Shuttles Currently there is one jitney 39 operating along the Mission Street corridor. There are over 30 private shuttles, not including hotel and airport shuttles, that operate mostly in the downtown and South of Market area. These are private shuttles operated by businesses that pick-up and drop-off their employees from regional transit stations such as BART Stations, the Ferry Building, Caltrain and the Transbay Terminal. Other shuttles serve students and staff of hospitals and academic institutions and have a wider route network throughout the City. Opportunities exist for shuttle consolidation because many of the shuttle routes overlap and ridership numbers are low enough that it would be more cost effective to operate one shuttle serving several businesses. 38 Overview of The San Francisco Tax Industry and Proposition K, A Short Report Prepared for the Charter Reform Working Group, A Policy Body of the San Francisco Taxi Commission The San Francisco Taxicab Industry Today, Section 1076 of the Police Code defines a Jitney Bus as a motor vehicle for hire less than 20 feet in length traversing the public streets between certain definite points or termini and conveying no more than 15 passengers for a fixed charge DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 48 of 96

51 F. Capital Projects Green Building Ordinance SF Department of Environment Code Chapter 7 has established LEED Silver as the green building standard for all new construction, renovation and additions over 5000 square feet in municipal buildings. When the SFMTA Muni Metro East (MME) and Islais Creek Bus Division projects were conceived and designed, the City mandated LEED silver certification was not required. However, where possible, the SFMTA has incorporated green elements as described below. For one of the newer projects, Burke Facility, which is in the conceptual engineering phase, the office area of the warehouse will be designed to meet LEED silver rating although specific elements have yet to be identified. Muni Metro East LRV: (completed) The Muni Metro East facility was built on a 13-acre, vacant former Western Pacific Railroad site just northwest of Pier 80, bounded by 25 th Street on the north, Illinois Street on the west, Cesar Chavez Street on the south and Louisiana Street (Paper Street) on the east. The facility is needed to support the new Third Street Light Rail Line as well as to relieve the overcrowded conditions of the Metro Green/Geneva facility. Functionally, the Metro East Facility will be a stand-alone facility capable of providing car cleaning, fare extraction, preventive maintenance, running repair, heavy repair, wheel truing, materials/parts storage services and other support services (such as truck shop, pantograph shop, HVAC shop, metal shop, pneumatic shop, welding shop, machine shop, etc.) to support an 80 LRV fleet. Specifically, the facility will consist of the following: 180,000 square foot, steel-framed Maintenance Shop Building founded on piles, with a partial second floor for the Transportation Division and other support services and with a partial mezzanine level Smaller Meet and Greet structure A paved, open yard for the 13-acre site with tracks and overhead catenary system for LRV storage; the yard will also have a dedicated ATCS test track An onsite employee and non-revenue vehicle parking lot for 180 rubber tire automobiles/trucks Traction power substations Access roads, utilities and tracks from Third Street to the facility via 25 th (primary entrance/exit) and Cesar Chavez Streets (secondary entrance/exit) Muni Metro East greening features include: Use of brown field site Bicycle storage and changing room Recycled water for car wash system HVAC without HCFC or Halon Contractor administered construction waste management Radiant heating with temperature control Carpet tiles from recycled material Islais Creek Bus Division: (detailed design) The SFMTA will design and construct a new bus yard to be located on 5.32 acres of City-owned land at 1301 Cesar Chavez Street. The new bus yard will include parking for 165 of the SFMTA's 40-foot diesel and diesel-hybrid buses and 19 non-revenue vehicles, three buildings with 16 service bays plus facilities for operations, maintenance, administration, fuel and wash. The SFMTA will use the adjacent 2.4 acres of Caltrans property located to the west of the proposed facility for motor coach parking and/or limited employee parking. The SFMTA will also use the interim facility at 1399 Marin Street, across Indiana Street, DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 49 of 96

52 for employee parking and other SFMTA functions. The new Islais Creek facility will replace the existing Kirkland motor coach facility at North Point and Stockton. On the north shore of Islais Creek, the SFMTA will create an edge treatment that reflects the historical industrial and port uses here along the bay, and will work with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), San Francisco Arts Commission and Friends of Islais Creek. Islais Creek Division greening features include: Designed for maintenance and future fueling of hydrogen fuel cell buses Extensive skylights for energy conservation Recycled water for car wash system Central Subway: The Central Subway will extend the Muni Metro T Third Line through the heart of San Francisco, directly linking Chinatown, Union Square, SOMA and the southeastern neighborhoods. This vital rail link will encourage new transit customers, contributing to over 17,000 new transit boardings daily, eliminating vehicle-dependence for many households and enabling truly transit-oriented development. The stations of the Central Subway are designed according to sustainable building practices that include material reduction, use of recycled and recyclable materials and energy efficiency. Structural concrete mixes will include fly-ash, an industrial by-product that reduces the use of quarried cement while improving concrete workability and durability. The main interior finishes are glass, steel and terrazzo. These materials have been selected for their durability, timeless aesthetics and recycled content. Post-use glass and porcelain aggregate will be used in terrazzo, a floor surface that will last for many decades. Wherever appropriate, structural concrete and steel will be treated to provide a second function as the architectural finish, avoiding the use of additional materials. Station entrances will make use of daylight, while the underground spaces, including tunnels, will be lit with energy-efficient and long-lasting LED fixtures. TOD will be integrated in the design of portals and station entrances wherever feasible. The SFPUC is interested in working with the SFMTA on using water pumped out of Central Subway and existing underground tunnels and stations for above ground landscape watering. Clean Construction Guidelines Adopted by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2007, when this new law takes effect in March 2009 contractors on large (20+ day) City, and in this case SFMTA construction projects, are required to meet clean construction equipment requirements for vehicles and/or equipment operated more than 20 hours during any portion of the project. The SFMTA has the authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance similar to those invoked for other failures to meet contract obligations. SFMTA contractors performing major project work will be required to: Fuel diesel vehicles with B20 biodiesel Use construction equipment with engines that meet US EPA Tier 2 standards for off-road engines or else use best available control technology for any engine over 25 hp DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 50 of 96

53 VI. ADDITIONAL CLIMATE ACTION PROGRAMS AND EFFORTS POTENTIAL AND NECESSARY NEXT STEPS There are roughly 1,000 days between the release of this 2009 Climate Action Plan and the 2012 citywide goal of a 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels in carbon emissions. Citywide emissions have gone down by five percent since 1990, but the transportation sector s share of emissions has increased since Since San Francisco s population is projected to be 13 percent higher than 1990 levels in 2012, overall VMT reduction and per capita carbon emission reductions are the true measure of transportation sector progress. The initiatives previously outlined in this report will move San Francisco in the right direction and must be continued, but are not enough. The scale of this challenge calls for substantially more proactive measures. As municipal GHG emissions constitute just six percent of the citywide total, the City must encourage emissions reductions beyond its own departments. Over one-half of all emissions come from the transportation sector, making it both a large challenge but also an area of opportunity. Private automobiles generate approximately 30 percent of the total and thus reducing their environmental impact must be a top priority. Although SFMTA does not have direct control over cars, the organization s policies and services strongly influence travel choice and thus transportation-related emissions. 40 Three broad components will be required to achieve the carbon emissions reduction goals: Vehicular Emissions Reductions Making transportation vehicles cleaner is an effective way to mitigate climate change. The SFMTA can support policies to implement cleaner technologies such as plug-in cars that are powered from renewable sources of electricity, although the development of such technologies is subject to factors beyond the SFMTA s mandate or control. The SFMTA will continue to prioritize transitioning to alternative fuels and technologies for its motor coach fleet. The SFMTA will also work to provide plug-in stations in City owned garages and other public locations. 40 In turn, the SFMTA s policies and services are strongly influenced by regional, state and national policies and funding priorities that are beyond the SFMTA s control. These may include, for example, fuel economy standards and funding for mass transit expansion DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 51 of 96

54 Vehicular Demand Reductions In addition to supporting initiatives to make personal vehicles cleaner, the City is committed to congestion management and environmental protection through its Transit First policy. The SFMTA is working with its partners to enact policies that will help reduce demand for driving and thus lower associated GHG emissions. The SFCTA is currently studying congestion pricing, a demand management strategy implemented on existing roadways to both reduce traffic congestion and encourage public transit ridership. The SFMTA is also partnering with the City to steer high-density, mixed-use development along strong transit corridors. Finally, the SFMTA has launched SFpark, a pilot program testing variable pricing for parking that aims, among other objectives, to price parking appropriately to balance the needs of economic vitality and reduction of vehicle trips. SFpark also aims to reduce circling for parking and resulting GHG emissions. Expansion of Transit, Walking and Bicycling The SFMTA s primary contribution to the reduction of transportation-related emissions will come through shifting people from cars to transit, walking and bicycling. Increasing the frequency and quality of transit beyond what is currently contemplated in the TEP recommendations and funding are essential to achieving a mode shift away from cars. As noted, adding more service will likely cause the SFMTA s own emissions to increase but will be offset by a much greater decrease in automobile-generated emissions. All three of these components are integral to achieving transportation sector GHG emission reduction targets. For example, increasing TOD will only reduce driving if sufficient transit service is available or there is safe pedestrian access. Likewise, people may continue driving even if transit service is increased unless policies are implemented that encourage them to make rational financial decisions about their travel. Transit Vehicles Including Non-revenue Vehicles A. Vehicular Emissions Reduction The TEP enhanced budget plan envisions increased purchases of Muni fleet vehicles and construction of new, additional Muni facilities to accommodate the storage and maintenance of a larger fleet. At this time, funding for this expansion has not been identified nor which transit fleets (light rail, hybrid bus or electric trolley buses) would be increased. In terms of bus fleet turnover and vehicle technologies, hydrogen fueling infrastructure must be pursued for two separate fuel cell bus programs in 2010 and facility preparations must be planned for hydrogen fuel by 2020 in order for the SFMTA to meet Clean Air Plan goals. The SFMTA should also pursue pilot programs featuring battery-electric vehicles. The Connected Bus pilot program allowed Muni passengers to preview potential, future opportunities to encourage additional ridership through access to more modern conveniences. More than one half of the SFMTA s transit fleet consists of zero emission vehicles, including electric trolley buses which constitute one third. SFMTA is strongly committed to expansion of its zero emission fleet. While the TEP does not specifically propose a major expansion of the electric trolley bus network, it does include a number of reroutes and minor expansions, which maintain or slightly improve the utilization of trolley buses and rail vehicles in the short term. In the long term, expansion of the zero emission fleet will take the form of replacing conventional buses with new technologies such as battery-powered or hydrogen fuel cell buses. Caltrain electrification and cleaner regional transit bus requirements are further steps in reducing San Francisco s overall transit emissions footprint DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 52 of 96

55 Non-transit vehicles State truck idling laws must be strictly enforced in San Francisco. This typically means five-minute maximum idle time per stop/delivery. Policies related to the use of cleaner truck fuels and technologies should be strongly evaluated with particular focus on high emission truck corridors. Private electric vehicles To support the transition to cleaner private vehicles, the SFMTA will investigate feasibility and cost of installing plug-in devices on the street for people to charge their cars. 41 The Mayors of San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland announced policies that they will advance, beginning in December 2008: Expedite permitting and installation of electric vehicle charging outlets at homes, businesses, parking lots and other buildings throughout the Bay Area Provide incentives for employers to install EV charging systems in their workplaces and provide similar incentives to parking facilities and other locations where EV charging stations can be installed Harmonize local regulations and standards across the region that govern EV infrastructure to achieve regulatory consistency for EV companies as well as expanded range for EV consumers Establish common government programs that promote the purchase of EVs Link EV programs and infrastructure to regional transit and air quality programs Establish programs for aggressive pooled-purchase orders for EVs in municipal, state government and private sector fleets and future commitment of purchasing preference for EV vehicles Expedite permitting and approval for facilities that provide extended-range driving capability for EVs in the region through battery exchange locations or fast-charging Identify and secure suitable standard (220V) electric outlets for charging low voltage EVs in every government building in 2009 Identify roll-out plan for placement of 220V EV charging equipment throughout each city including city parking lots and curbside parking To advance these policies, San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland Mayors will work with other regional cities, BAAQMD, MTC and ABAG, as well as with many private sector partners including the members of the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group. 42 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) B. Vehicular Demand Reduction Measures Orienting land uses towards transit and walking is one of the most effective ways of managing travel demand and reducing automobile trips. Largely developed prior to World War II, San Francisco is the nation s second densest city and remains relatively transit-oriented compared to other cities. Within different San Francisco neighborhoods, however, vehicle ownership rates and corresponding transit ridership vary substantially. They are highly correlated with land use and density, even more so than income. For example, the lower-income and low density Bay View-Hunters Point area has substantially higher automobile ownership rates than upper-income and high density Cole Valley. 41 On November 21, 2008 San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums announced a nine-step policy plan for transforming the Bay Area into the Electric Vehicle (EV) Capital of the U.S. In conjunction with the news, Better Place, a global electric transportation company, announced that it would enter the U.S. market with California as its first state, beginning in the Bay Area. Commercial availability of electric cars is targeted to begin in 2012, and Better Place estimates its network investment in the Bay Area will total $1 billion when the system is fully deployed. The three Mayors said they welcomed Better Place s announcement and anticipate many other EV companies will focus on the Bay Area as a top-priority market Ibid DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 53 of 96

56 San Francisco s Central Business District and oldest neighborhoods primarily in the northeast quadrant were built before current parking requirements were adopted and were designed around streetcars, cable cars and walking as modes of transportation. In the 1950s extensive freeway construction superimposed a high volume of automobiles and vehicular infrastructure on a street network that could not well accommodate them. The freeways in the northeast quadrant of San Francisco were mostly removed in the 1990s. These areas have largely retained dense, mixed-use development and accompanying high transit and walking mode shares. Not surprisingly, they also have the lowest automobile ownership rates at less than one vehicle per household. Outlying San Francisco neighborhoods that were developed in the 1920s or later are still fairly dense and support transit relative to other cities. However, compared to the older parts of San Francisco, they are less dense and more automobile-oriented because they were built when car ownership rates had begun to increase. These neighborhoods feature wider streets, garages in homes and more parking availability. In particular, the areas south of Interstate 280 and southwest of Twin Peaks have automobile ownership rates exceeding 1.5 per household DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 54 of 96

57 These observations suggest that continuing to link transportation and land use decisions is an extremely effective way to reduce automobile trips. The City of San Francisco has developed a Citywide Action Plan that outlines the type and location of future development. In particular, the City s Planning Department is developing policy initiatives for supporting and encouraging higher density, mixed-use, primarily residential infill in selected transit-rich corridors. Potential opportunities also exist to integrate residential or commercial projects with existing SFMTA-owned facilities, which would not only generate transit ridership but also could provide leasing revenues to support transit operations. By emphasizing growth around transit corridors, the plan is an important step towards the long-term reduction of GHG emissions DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 55 of 96

58 The map above illustrates key initiatives of the Citywide Action Plan and their relationship to major transit corridors. While the plan focuses on areas throughout San Francisco, there are a couple of major studies particularly relevant to promoting transit-oriented development and reducing vehicle usage: Eastern Neighborhoods Program This effort includes communities adjacent to the Third Street light rail line, the SFMTA s most recent rail transit investment. Historically, the eastern waterfront has accommodated low-density industrial uses and the challenge will be to integrate new development along this corridor in a way that supports high transit ridership. Downtown Neighborhoods Initiative This effort will provide a comprehensive strategy for strengthening downtown s vitality and set the stage for as many as 40,000 new housing units in the City s core. Steering new housing to areas where transit and walking are already very strong will help diminish the need for automobile ownership, reduce vehicle miles traveled and prevent associated GHG emissions, Furthermore, adding more residential units downtown will help increase transit ridership during off-peak hours when capacity is available DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 56 of 96

59 Downtown Neighborhoods Initiative Potential New Housing Opportunities SFpark SFpark is an SFMTA initiative that will test variable pricing to improve the management of the City s limited parking supply. A major goal of SFpark is to reduce congestion and pollution associated with circling for parking. San Francisco will be the first city to implement a full array of parking management techniques and technologies. Elements include: New parking meters that accept many forms of payment, including coins, credit and debit cards In-street parking sensors that enable thorough evaluation, new pricing structures and more costeffective enforcement Relaxed parking time limits and demand-responsive pricing that will help achieve parking availability targets; special event pricing will also be tested By reducing congestion, the number of needless vehicle miles travelled while searching for parking and, potentially, overall auto trip demand, SFpark is expected to reduce localized emissions of pollutants, including GHG emissions; helping transit become faster and more reliable is also expected to support the goal of attracting more people this green mode SFpark s goals include: Reducing congestion Use new parking management technology and techniques to reduce double parking, circling while looking for parking and the number and duration of automobile trips in peak times and places. Together, these changes are expected to reduce congestion. These impacts are expected to be most significant at the localized level within the pilot areas, e.g., at peak periods in areas with high travel demand, but may reduce congestion more broadly, e.g., bridges that are constrained at peak periods. Improving speed and reliability of public transit Increase public transit s speed and reliability by reducing unpredictable delays caused by double parking and congestion DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 57 of 96

60 Improving air quality By reducing congestion and the number of needless vehicle miles travelled while searching for parking, SFpark is expected to reduce localized emissions of pollutants, including GHG emissions. Congestion Pricing Congestion pricing is another possible demand management strategy for San Francisco. Congestion pricing would be implemented on existing roadways to both reduce traffic congestion and encourage public transit ridership. Charging drivers a fee for the use of specific roadways is a way to reduce demand for driving on the most congested streets and at the same time make traffic flow efficiently for the remaining car traffic and for public transportation. It also makes the street more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. As London, Stockholm and others cities have demonstrated, the revenues generated by a congestion fee can be used to improve alternatives to driving such as transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. In 2005 the SFCTA received a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation Value Pricing Program to study congestion pricing in San Francisco. Implementing the proposal would take several years at a minimum and require local, state and possibly federal approval. The study has currently identified two congestion pricing options: (a) Double Ring: In this scenario drivers would be assessed a fee when entering the City of San Francisco from the Golden Gate Bridge, Bay Bridge and along the San Mateo County border. An additional fee would be applied to a downtown cordon centered around the Financial District, Civic Center and South of Market area north of the Central Freeway and the Bay Bridge approach. Approximately 4.6 million trips would be affected by this plan. (b) Northeastern Cordon: In this scenario drivers would be assessed a fee when traveling into, out of or within the northeastern quadrant of San Francisco. The boundaries would be approximately Divisadero and 18 th Streets. Revenues from congestion pricing would be reinvested into local and regional transit, along with roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and streetscape amenities. Goals of congestion pricing would include: Congestion Management 15 percent decrease in peak-period auto trips and a 30 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled Sustainable Economic Growth 30 percent decrease in vehicle hours of delay and a five percent to 10 percent reduction in annual inflation-adjusted congestion costs Reduced climate change impact 15 percent reduction in GHG emissions from transportation and up to a four percentage point increase in transit mode share DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 58 of 96

61 Other Vehicular Demand Reduction Strategies Carsharing allows members to access cars by the hour when needed which, when combined with transit, allows people to potentially forgo vehicle ownership altogether. Opportunities exist for SFMTA to partner with carsharing organizations to locate vehicles adjacent to transit stops and possibly provide financial incentives to carsharing members who also commit to using transit. U.S. studies and surveys indicate that between 11 to 26 percent of carsharing participants sold a personal vehicle, and between 12 to 68 percent postponed or entirely avoided a car purchase. Furthermore, U.S and Canadian data reveal that each carsharing vehicle removes between six to 23 cars from the roads 43. Employers offering free or subsidized parking can implement parking cash out. Under this program an employer gives employees a choice to keep a parking space at work or to accept a cash payment or give up the parking space. Potentially, this payment could be used to pay for a transit pass. In San Francisco, parking cash out might be applicable to areas outside the central business district core where parking is more abundant, or for downtown garages where companies provide certain employees free or subsidized parking. Currently, the SFMTA partners with colleges and universities to provide discounted transit passes, called the Class Pass, to students, as long as all students purchase a pass with their registration fees regardless of their transit usage. These passes encourage taking transit for school commutes and for employment or recreational trips, often during off-peak hours when transit capacity is available. Fees could be adjusted to expand market penetration while ensuring that enough revenue is generated for the SFMTA. This program could also be expanded to non-school organizations. C. Major Transit, Bicycling and Pedestrian Improvements In addition to supporting cleaner vehicle technologies and implementing policies to lower the demand for driving, a major expansion of transit, bicycling and walking is a core component of a GHG emission reduction strategy. Increasing the attractiveness of alternatives to private automobiles is necessary to support expected travel demand from new parking management strategies, congestion pricing, increased transit-oriented development and other demand mitigation policies as well as from population growth. Bicycling and Pedestrian Improvements Encouraging more people to bicycle and walk to their destinations is an effective, low-cost way to eliminate carbon emissions from certain trips altogether. Adding bicycle lanes and paths, implementing safety improvements and increasing bicycle parking supply can make bicycling more attractive even in a hilly city such as San Francisco. While a relatively small percentage of people currently bicycle to work, overall numbers are increasing. The potential for bicycling growth is high within San Francisco because many trips involve a distance of a few miles or less. Copenhagen and other cities have achieved bicycling mode shares of one-third or higher 44 by making bicycling safer through the physical separation of bicycles and automobile traffic and by providing bicycle parking. Likewise, improving the pedestrian experience as provided in the SFMTA s Better Streets Plan can also increase the walking mode share. An important component to making walking more attractive is ensuring that streets and intersections are safe. The SFMTA continues to install countdown pedestrian traffic signals which have been shown to reduce injury collisions by over 50 percent, as well as scramble signals where 43 Carsharing in North America: Future Growth, Current Development and Future Potential, Shaheen, Cohen and Roberts, November Liveable Copenhagen: The Design of a Bicycle City, Alyse Nelson, Center of Public Space Research, Copenhagen and University of Washington, Seattle, DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 59 of 96

62 vehicular traffic is stopped in all directions to allow pedestrians to cross the intersections. Improvements may also include reconfiguring the intersection of one-way streets where pedestrians are sometimes prohibited from directly crossing the street and instead must walk a roundabout route. Transit Effectiveness Project The SFMTA TEP is a critical step in updating the transit network structure to reflect current travel patterns and to identify future growth needs. Operating Budget Neutral Scenario Capital Improvements The route and service recommendations in the TEP currently assume no new operating revenue sources. Therefore, enhancements along Rapid and other selected routes are balanced out by operational enhancements, such as delay reduction strategies, and by service reductions elsewhere. While no additional operating funding would be required, this base TEP scenario will still require approximately $200 million in capital improvements consisting of the following elements: Reliability Improvements ($5 million capital cost): Scheduling and data analysis tools, rail network study, additional terminal monitoring equipment and handheld devices for street supervisors Route Updates ($150 million capital cost): Major terminals, operator restrooms, rail infrastructure (new terminals), bus infrastructure (including electric trolley coach infrastructure), stop enhancements and other initiatives Travel Time Improvements and Delay Reduction Strategies ($45 million capital cost): Transit Priority Street infrastructure, Market Street enhancements, off-vehicle fare collection and other initiatives Enhanced Scenario Operating and Capital Improvements The TEP has also identified a package of net service improvements that could be implemented with additional funding resources. Together, they represent approximately a 25 percent increase in service hours over existing levels. More Rapid and Express Services ($77 million operating cost; capital costs to be determined) Peak and midday service along the Rapid rail and bus network would increase by approximately 20 percent beyond the budget neutral plan Expanding Rapid service would require purchasing additional vehicles, building new operating and maintenance facilities and addressing challenges such as capacity constraints in the Muni Metro tunnel New Network Connections ($12 million operating cost; capital costs to be determined) New network connections to serve more destinations and enhance regional transit travel would require additional vehicles and some entail requisite capital investments in trolley wire or rail track. New network connections could include: DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 60 of 96

63 New Network Connections, Transit Effectiveness Project Enhanced Budget Scenario Rail Electric Trolley Bus Bus Extending the F-Market and Wharves or new E Embarcadero historic streetcar to Fort Mason. Extending the T-Third Line to the Caltrain Bayshore Station. Running the J-Church Line beyond the proposed San Francisco State University (SFSU) terminal to Stonestown. Extending the M-Ocean View Line beyond SFSU to Daly City BART. Connecting the 24-Divisadero to the Marina using the 22-Fillmore overhead wires. Building new overhead trolley wires to extend the 30-Stockton to the Presidio Transit Center. Installing additional trolley infrastructure on parts of the Mission Street to allow both local and limited routes to use zero-emission trolley coaches and pass one another. Extending Route 28 to Visitacion Valley via Geneva, creating faster connections to the T Line and Bayshore Caltrain Station. Adding a new express bus route to connect Hunters Point and downtown, serving current residents and preparing for new residents in Hunters Point. New Network Connections, Transit Effectiveness Project Enhanced Budget Scenario DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 61 of 96

64 More Local and Community Connector Services ($37 million operating cost; capital costs to be determined): The third component of the enhanced plan would increase frequency on local and community lines and extend the system s capabilities, bringing all routes up to recommended TEP minimum standards. The enhanced plan focuses on increasing service on Local routes and Community Connectors and shortening waiting times across the City. Additional Local service would require purchasing additional vehicles and building new operating and maintenance facilities. Enhanced Evening Network ($12 million operating cost; capital costs to be determined): The fourth component would provide more frequent service at night to improve the quality of life for those waiting for and riding Muni after dark. This enhancement would not require significant additional capital investment because it would utilize Muni s existing vehicle fleet for more service hours each day. Community Connectors would see improvements as well. Projected Transit Effectiveness Project Ridership Increases Average Weekday Ridership Ridership Increase over 2005 Ridership increase over 2005 % Ridership increase over 2015 Baseline Ridership increase over 2015 Baseline % Transit Service Levels 2005 Baseline 683, Baseline 786, , % 2015 TEP Operating Budget Neutral 858, ,000* +24% +72,000* +9% 2015 TEP Enhanced 918, ,000* +32% +132,000* +14% *Systemwide ridership is projected to increase due to the concentration of resources on high-ridership routes; however, ridership may decrease in areas or times of day when service is eliminated, frequency is reduced or hours of operation are shortened. Forecasting models provided by the SFCTA suggest that weekday SFMTA transit ridership could increase by approximately 103,000 by 2015 over 2005 baseline levels with no structural changes to the existing system. The TEP operating budget neutral scenario, which assumes a reorganized route structure but no net service increase, could raise weekday ridership by an additional 72,000, or nine percent, over 2015 baseline levels. In contrast, the TEP enhanced scenario, which represents a net 25 percent service increase, could increase weekday ridership by 132,000, or 14 percent, over 2015 baseline levels. Currently, transit captures an all-day mode share of approximately 15.4 percent of all trips taken in San Francisco. The operating budget neutral scenario is projected to increase this share by one percentage point, while the enhanced scenario could increase this share by approximately two percentage points. While these numbers appear to be modest improvements, they are actually significant steps in the right direction and underscore the level of service increases that are necessary to achieve GHG reduction targets. Accelerated Transit Expansion Program While the proposed TEP enhanced scenario plan would make substantial improvements, the potential for transit in San Francisco can be even greater. One of the largest impediments to increased ridership is the existing level of service DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 62 of 96

65 In 1946, transit ridership was approximately 970,000 per weekday Source: Report of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Fiscal Year Models indicate that weekday ridership could reach 918,000 under the enhanced scenario of the TEP. In 1946 transit ridership was approximately 970,000 per weekday 45. While this high ridership level in many ways could be attributable to the conditions at the conclusion of World War II, the fact is that San Francisco s transit system at one point did provide nearly one million passenger trips per day. However, even with this high level of ridership, the transit network back then did not serve as many markets as today. For example, the vast majority of service consisted of radial streetcar routes connecting outlying neighborhoods with Downtown. Very little cross-town service operated west of Fillmore and south of 16 th Street. Major trip generators such as San Francisco State University and Stonestown Galleria did not exist. There were few connections to regional transit service to the Peninsula and Marin County because these areas had a small population and employment base. San Francisco Transit Service Levels (Year) Average Weekday Ridership Per Capita Ridership , TEP Operating Budget Neutral 858, TEP Enhanced 918, , These observations suggest that the SFMTA could achieve much higher levels ridership potentially exceeding one million on an average weekday and reduce associated GHG emissions. Beyond continuing to encourage employment and residential growth in areas adjacent to high-frequency transit corridors, additional efforts should focus on the following improvements the transit system: 45 Report of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Fiscal Year DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 63 of 96

66 Currently, almost two-thirds of travel to or from the City s northeast quadrant is on transit, bicycle or foot. The corollary is that nearly one third of travel to the part of the region where transit and walking already have a competitive advantage is made by the automobile. Transit can accommodate some of this automobile travel with additional capacity on currently overcrowded corridors, particularly during peak hours. Two thirds of travel within San Francisco outside the northeast quadrant is by automobile. To be more competitive with driving, transit frequency must be increased so that customers experience shorter waiting times. Currently, cross-town travel often involves transferring between routes, which coupled with buses that generally arrive every 15 to 30 minutes, results in travel times that cannot compete with driving. SFMTA transit connections to regional services such as BART, Caltrain and Golden Gate Transit must be strengthened to facilitate travel to counties surrounding San Francisco. It can take a halfhour or longer to travel from neighborhoods in central and western San Francisco to reach regional transit service. Currently the SFMTA provides about 275 transit trips per resident per year. With the major service additions envisioned under the TEP enhanced scenario, ridership could rise to 335 trips per resident per year. While this ridership level would improve upon what is already one of the highest utilization rates in the nation, San Francisco could achieve far more with a larger investment in transit. The most transit-intensive cities in the world have substantially higher ridership rates. The transit system in Zürich, Switzerland, for example, provides approximately 560 trips per resident per year 46, far above even San Francisco s 1946 rate of nearly 400 trips per resident per year. Approximately 65 percent of residents who live and work in Zürich take transit, 47 over double San Francisco s rate. Nearly all streetcar, trolley bus and regular bus routes within the city of Zürich, Switzerland operate every 12 minutes or better until midnight. In addition to the vehicular emissions and demand reductions mentioned earlier, meeting GHG emissions targets will require a large mode shift from automobiles to transit supported by a massive transit service 46 Project for Public Spaces, 47 Zürich: Top City thanks to light rail, Tramways & Urban Transit, April DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 64 of 96

67 increase well beyond the 25 percent growth envisioned under the enhanced scenario of the TEP 48. In particular, the SFMTA must not only increase peak capacity but also off-peak frequency in order to accommodate more discretionary non-work trips. A comparison to Zürich, which has approximately double the transit utilization rate of San Francisco, illustrates the magnitude of service improvements needed to significantly improve the SFMTA s transit market penetration. Zürich s service intensity, as measured by the level of transit service provided divided by the service area (weekday vehicle miles per square mile), is also approximately double that of San Francisco. Furthermore, in recognition that a high level of service is required to attract discretionary trips to transit, the frequency of service on all major radial and cross-town routes within Zürich city limits is at least every 12 minutes until midnight. In contrast, comparable routes in San Francisco run as infrequently as every 20 to 30 minutes. San Francisco Zürich Annual Transit Trips Per Resident Work Trip Mode Share 31% 65% Service Intensity (weekday vehicle 1,800 (budget-neutral TEP) 3,800 miles per square mile) 2,200 (enhanced TEP) Weekday Frequency on Core 3-20 minutes 7½ minutes Routes* Evening Frequency on Core Routes* minutes 12 minutes * In San Francisco, core routes are the Rapid and Local services defined by the TEP. In Zürich, core routes are nearly all radial and crosstown services within City limits. Peak-Period Capacity Improvements During the peak hours, most SFMTA transit routes run very frequently but they are also approaching maximum capacity. The following map illustrates that peak-period overcrowding is prevalent throughout the system and suggests that these conditions may be hampering additional ridership growth. Customer circulation within the vehicle becomes difficult, leading to higher dwell times as people attempt to enter and exit. These delays reduce reliability and can lead to long service gaps. In turn, service gaps result in more customers farther along the route boarding the delayed bus, contributing to even more overcrowding. Pass-ups are more likely to occur when vehicles are too full, leading to delayed travel and missed connections. Full buses and trains cannot physically accommodate additional customers or can only do so at extreme discomfort, resulting in people choosing to drive. 48 It is conservatively estimated that the TEP enhanced scenario would decrease the driving mode share and increase the transit mode share by approximately two percentage points DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 65 of 96

68 Peak Period Crowding of Muni Transit Routes Peak Load Factors* Over 150% (Crush loads) 125% to 150% (Moderate crowding) 100% to 125% (Some standees) *defined as the number of customers divided by the number of seats available at the busiest point of a route Both the TEP operating budget neutral and enhanced scenarios include service enhancements on multiple routes that will begin to address existing peak-period overcrowding. The following map illustrates that large portions of San Francisco will receive additional peak-period service under the budget neutral scenario. Additional peak-period capacity beyond the TEP enhanced scenario will likely be required to accommodate a more substantial mode shift from automobiles to transit DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 66 of 96

69 Proposed Peak-Period Frequency Changes, TEP s Operating Budget Neutral Scenario Off-Peak Frequency Improvements (Middays, Evenings and Weekends) During off-peak hours, while there are also some capacity constraints, an even greater concern is that service does not run frequently or reliably enough to attract additional customers. The TEP aims to maintain a 10-minute base headway on all Rapid routes. In some corridors where routes overlap, vehicles may come as often as every three minutes. However, most Local routes are planned to operate every 12 to 20 minutes while community routes will operate every 20 to 30 minutes. Evening service on most local routes would operate every 20 to 30 minutes, while on some community routes service would cease after 8:30 p.m. While the SFMTA under the TEP plan would continue to provide a high level of service compared to other American cities, it may still be too infrequent for people with transportation options. Research has shown that a 10 minute service frequency is often necessary to attract discretionary ridership from people who have other transportation choices. Even a 10 minute service frequency may be insufficient in some parts of San Francisco where parking is more available and a person can drive almost halfway across the City in 10 minutes. The following maps illustrate current scheduled off-peak levels of service. During the midday, many routes operate every 10 minutes or better. Most parts of the City have access to service at least every 15 minutes, although there are some less frequent services primarily outside the City s northeastern quadrant. In contrast, during the evening hours, there are relatively few routes that run every 15 minutes and only handful that come every 10 minutes or less. During the evening hours it can be substantially more difficult to travel by transit, particularly for trips that require transfers DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 67 of 96

70 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 68 of 96

71 Regional Connections San Francisco is a regional hub of activity and any plans to reduce its transportation sector GHG emissions must take account of its place in the larger Bay Area. In 2007 more than half of workers that traveled within, into or out of San Francisco were regional commuters, including over 265,000 workers who commuted to San Francisco from outside the City and over 100,000 San Franciscans who commuted to jobs in other counties. 49 Among these regional trips transit continues to remain competitive in traditional markets. For example, nearly half of regional in-commuters who work in the Financial District and remainder of San Francisco s northeast quadrant use transit. However, transit s mode share is low in two key markets served by the SFMTA: In-commuters who live outside the City and work outside the City s northeast quadrant, a market of about 80,000 people Reverse commuters who live in San Francisco and work in the South Bay or along the Peninsula, a market of about 60,000 people Transit Mode Shares Regional Commuters In-Commuters (265,000) Transit Mode Share Reverse-Commuters (100,000) Transit Mode Share Live Elsewhere and Work in San Francisco Live in San Francisco and Work Elsewhere Work in the Northeast Quadrant 47% Work in the South Bay/Peninsula 9% Work elsewhere in San Francisco 15% Work in the East Bay 23% Source: American Community Survey 2007, U.S. Census Bureau and 2000 Census data One of the reasons why transportation-related GHG emissions have increased in San Francisco has been the rapid growth of regional commuting. Between 1990 and 2000, for example, the number of San Franciscans commuting to jobs in the South Bay or along the Peninsula grew by 46 percent. 50 While it is more difficult for transit to be competitive for these types of regional trips there are a couple of ways transit can become more attractive and improve its market share. Regional Fare Integration: There are 27 different transit providers in the Bay Area, each one having its own fare structure and transfer arrangements. Some examples of complete fare integration do exist. For instance, the SFMTA s FastPass is valid on BART within San Francisco and is a popular program that generates 12 million boardings per year. On the Peninsula, Caltrain customers who have passes for trips of 49 American Community Survey 2007, U.S. Census Bureau 50 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 data DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 69 of 96

72 two or more zones may travel free on SamTrans and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) system. Fare agreements like these are particularly beneficial for the customer and for overall regional mobility, but have financial impacts on the participating transit agencies. Nevertheless, the general lack of fare coordination presents barriers to riding transit. Thus, while the SFMTA offers one of the least expensive monthly passes in the nation at $45, a commuter from Oakland to San Francisco may pay upwards of $250 per month to ride AC Transit, BART and SFMTA services. Although the MTC has been developing the TransLink regional smart card to simplify fare payment, no new inter-agency fare coordination policies are currently planned for implementation under TransLink. Attempts at further regional fare integration 51 have not advanced because individual transit agencies would potentially forgo some revenue. Achieving fare coordination and realizing the resulting ridership and climate change mitigation benefits will require additional funding sources so that operators can be made whole. Improved Reverse Commute Service to the Peninsula: With the introduction of Caltrain s Baby Bullet commute period trains in 2004 one can travel from the 4 th & King or 22 nd Street Caltrain Stations to San Jose in less than an hour. 52 Travel times from 4 th & King to Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View are just 30 minutes, 37 minutes and 45 minutes, respectively. Faster service has contributed to significant ridership gains. Since 2002 average morning peak ridership at San Francisco stations has increased over 55 percent, from 1,738 to 2, Getting to the 4 th & King or 22 nd Street Stations on transit from San Francisco neighborhoods, however, remains time consuming and a significant impediment to even larger ridership gains. These stations, as well as the Bayshore Station by the San Mateo County line, are all located near the eastern waterfront, requiring long bus or rail rides to the neighborhoods where commuters live. The following map illustrates what portion of San Francisco is accessible to Caltrain within a 20-minute transit ride, excluding transfer and wait times. 51 Per a Regional Measure 2 legislative requirement, the TransLink consortium members submitted an Integrated Fare Study report to the legislature in June This report investigated only a revenue-neutral integrated fare instrument and concluded that it would not result in significant ridership gains. 52 Local reverse-commute service also stops at the Bayshore Station near the San Mateo County border, but trains arrive only once per hour and travel times are much longer to the Peninsula and South Bay. 53 Caltrain Annual Passenger Counts, February 2002 and February DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 70 of 96

73 The Transbay Terminal, located adjacent to the Financial District at 1 st and Mission Streets, is scheduled to be rebuilt beginning in The first phase of the project will include the construction of a temporary terminal and a new transit center for regional buses. The second phase, which is scheduled for completion in 2019 if funding is secured, would accommodate a new Caltrain terminal and potentially high-speed rail trains to the Central Valley and Southern California. If this phase of the project advances, it would greatly enhance Caltrain s utility by providing walkable connections to BART, Golden Gate Transit, AC Transit and major SFMTA bus and rail lines. In the meantime, opportunities may exist for express bus connections to Caltrain from neighborhoods with large numbers of southbound commuters, such as the Haight Ashbury, Western Addition, Castro, Noe Valley and the Mission. In addition, the City should continue to support large employers along the Peninsula and in the South Bay who have established private deluxe motor coach shuttles to transport workers directly from San Francisco neighborhoods to their offices. In February 2005 the SFCTA completed a study that examined the feasibility of adding a Caltrain station at Oakdale Avenue adjacent to the Bayview neighborhood. Construction of the Oakdale station would improve access to Caltrain from the southeastern corner of the City and could potentially provide access to other neighborhoods through connections with three Muni bus routes. BART also connects with Caltrain at Millbrae, enabling commuters who live in areas such as the Mission District and Glen Park to reach the Peninsula and South Bay. However, while the physical connection between BART and Caltrain exists, there are several impediments to ridership growth. First, if one does not live adjacent to BART, riding Muni to BART to Caltrain requires two transfers, which increases travel times DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 71 of 96

74 and introduces the potential for missed connections. Because Caltrain s Baby Bullet trains stop at selected Peninsula and South Bay stations as infrequently as every hour, missing a train could result in long delays. Secondly, BART and Caltrain fares are currently not coordinated and may be too high to compete with automobile travel. A combined BART-Caltrain monthly fare from 16 th Street Mission to Palo Alto, for example, exceeds $ This issue could conceivably be addressed with an integrated regional fare structure. 54 Caltrain s monthly fare from Millbrae to Palo Alto is $ BART s monthly fare from 16 th Street Mission to Millbrae, assuming 21 round trips per month and a 6.25 percent discount for high volume purchases, is approximately $155 based on a $3.95 one-way fare DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 72 of 96

75 VII. FUNDING Implementing the measures to achieve the City s transportation sector GHG emission reduction targets and achieve ancillary transportation and mobility benefits will require substantial unidentified capital and operating resources. While a detailed budget has yet to be developed for most of the proposed initiatives, an order of magnitude calculation suggests that operating costs could be hundreds of millions of dollars annually and that capital costs could also be hundreds of millions of dollars. On the other hand, incremental revenue from candidate initiatives such as SFpark and Congestion Pricing would likely be in the tens of millions of dollars range. Some proposed initiatives, such as reducing emissions through the introduction of electric private vehicles, would likely have minimal direct net capital or operating financial impacts on the SFMTA; however, purchasing such vehicles would cumulatively cost individual citizens and businesses tens of billions of dollars. While the financial costs of mitigating climate change appear to be very high, they may be even higher if no efforts are undertaken to curb GHG emissions. Financial Impacts of Major Proposed Initiatives Initiative Potential Financial Impact A. Vehicular Emissions Reduction Transit vehicles including nonrevenue vehicles per rail vehicle; $20,000-$500,000 per non-revenue vehicle Procurement costs: $500,000-$1 million capital cost per bus; 55 $3-$4 million Non-transit vehicles Capital costs to install plug-in chargers for electric vehicles could potentially be recouped through user fees. Minimal direct net capital or operating costs to the SFMTA, but would cumulatively cost individual citizens or businesses tens of billions of dollars to purchase new private vehicles B. Vehicular Demand Reduction Measures Transit-Oriented Development Minimal direct capital or operating costs to the SFMTA; some TOD costs may (TOD) be supported by the MTC s Transportation for Livable Communities program or other grant programs; TOD may generate additional tax revenues to support transportation and other City programs SFpark $100 million or less to implement citywide (partially funded by federal Urban Partnership Program grant); could generate an incremental $10 million or more annually in parking revenues Congestion Pricing Capital costs undetermined but could be partially offset by a grant; could generate a net of $35 million to $65 million for transportation purposes after administrative costs are covered Bicycling and Pedestrian Relatively small capital costs and minimal operating costs to the SFMTA. Improvements Other Vehicular Demand Reduction Strategies (carsharing, parking cash out, universal transit passes) Relatively small direct capital and operating costs, although additional resources may be required if service is increased to accommodate ridership generated through these programs C. Major Transit, Bicycling and Pedestrian Improvements Bicycling and Pedestrian Relatively small capital costs and minimal operating costs to the SFMTA Improvements Transit Effectiveness Project $200 million capital costs; minimal incremental operating costs Operating Budget Neutral Scenario 55 Hybrid buses cost roughly $500,000 each; trolley buses cost roughly $850,000 each and fuel cell buses currently cost roughly $2.5 million each. The industry target for the cost of fuel cell buses in a large procurement is roughly $1.0 million each. For comparison, conventional diesel buses cost roughly $350,000 each. Full-size battery-electric buses are still emerging but should be comparable in cost to hybrid buses DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 73 of 96

76 Transit Effectiveness Project Operating Budget Neutral Scenario Transit Effectiveness Project Enhanced Scenario Accelerated Transit Expansion Program $200 million capital costs; minimal incremental operating costs Capital costs undetermined; $150 million annual operating costs partially offset by additional fare revenue from ridership gains Capital costs undetermined; $300 million or more in annual operating costs above the TEP Enhanced Scenario (depending on the level of service offered) partially offset by additional fare revenue from ridership gains The SFMTA s largest expenditure and most direct impact on the transportation system involves providing Muni transit service. The level of service that SFMTA can offer both in terms of overall service hours (including off-peak service) as well as the maximum capacity as measured by peak vehicles is directly related to capital and operating funding. In turn, ridership and the resulting reduction in GHG emissions are strongly influenced by the level of transit service provided. The following charts illustrate the relationship between service provided and ridership in San Francisco and several other North American cities since San Francisco s service slightly increased over the past decade, but rose 6.5 percent in FY Lower ridership does not imply that nothing has been done to improve transit. On the contrary, many rail and trolley bus extensions, a new maintenance and operations facility and other major infrastructure investments have been completed or are planned, as noted in Section V. Further, the long term ridership loss may be partially attributable to economic conditions, the growth of reverse commuting by automobile and the inability to fund major service enhancements that would relieve peak-period overcrowding and offer additional off-peak service when demand is high. While the specific circumstances impacting service and ridership vary from city to city, the data nevertheless strongly suggest that transit systems that have managed to sustain large increases in peak capacity and in transit service overall have also experienced substantial ridership growth. Potentially even larger ridership gains could have been realized with strong vehicular demand reduction measures in these cities. The corollary also appears to be valid as it is difficult to sustain major ridership growth without significantly increasing the level of transit service offered DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 74 of 96

77 Operating Funding Capacity The SFMTA has one of the most diverse sources of funding for day-to-day operations among large transportation organizations. It receives major support from transit fares, parking and traffic fees and fines, operating grants from a variety of state and local sources and San Francisco s General Fund. Over 80 percent of the SFMTA budget is currently generated at the local level primarily through fares, parking and the City s General Fund. The SFMTA receives limited federal operating assistance to cover the capital cost of contracting for operating paratransit service, taking advantage of federal legislation that allows transit systems to defray van purchases and other capital costs encumbered by paratransit contractors. The remainder of funding (16 percent) is provided by the State of California through state sales and gas tax monies statutorily reserved for transit operations. Immediate Operating Budget Shortfall The SFMTA is currently facing a mid-year $40 million operating shortfall that threatens its ability to maintain existing services, let alone to implement the initiatives necessary to achieve GHG emissions targets. To help address this deficit, the SFMTA is freezing more than 400 vacant positions and most hiring outside of transit operations has been deferred. The SFMTA is also exploring cost cutting in other areas such as maintenance, contracting, rent and supplies while endeavoring to generate more revenues, possibly from advertising and parking fees DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 75 of 96

78 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 76 of 96

79 State Funding Cutbacks Having a diverse funding base would normally provide a cushion against a decline in any one source, but the current economic crisis has impacted revenues at all levels, including critical state transit assistance funds. Currently the SFMTA receives over $36 million in State Transit Assistance (STA) funds, a large amount of funding resources for transit service and other transportation programs. Over the past several years operating funding from the STA program has been diverted to other uses and most recently threatened with cutbacks. The STA is the only ongoing source of state funding for local public transportation operations. STA funds originate from a variety of sources, including sales taxes on gasoline which are statutorily dedicated to transit and other transportation operating and capital projects under Proposition 42, which was passed in March The STA program is also funded by spillover revenues generated when the sales tax on gasoline increases at a faster rate than all other taxable items. Spillover funding was designed to enable transit agencies to cover their own fuel costs and to provide additional service for motorists seeking alternatives to high gasoline prices. Until the second half of 2008 spillover revenues had been rising rapidly due to a multi-year escalation of gas prices. Over the past several years, significant amounts of state transit funds have been diverted to the state s General Fund. For example, the FY state budget diverted $1.26 billion away from transit. The most immediate cause of the SFMTA s mid-year financial crisis is Governor Schwarzenegger s proposal to scale back the already diminished STA program and then eliminate it altogether in order to address a state budget crisis.. The Governor has called for a $230 million cut to STA funds, a 75 percent reduction from September's allocation of $306 million, and the complete elimination of the program beginning in While the State legislature has resisted eliminating the program altogether, it is proposing to reduce the STA program by over 50 percent to $150 million per year statewide, equivalent to less than a $5 contribution from every Californian. The earlier allocation of $306 million itself represented a diversion of 84 percent of available transit funding to cover non-transit holes in the state General Fund. If enacted, the plan would result in a total diversion of more than $1.8 billion in revenues created by voters through a series of statewide initiatives specifically for public transit funding. Clearly, the most immediate short-term funding priority is to ensure the continuation of state transit funding. Without this funding, the SFMTA may be forced to eliminate transit routes and/or reduce service frequency, making it impossible to comply with state GHG emission reduction targets. A second major concern relates to the SFMTA revenues received from the City s General Fund. Passed by San Francisco voters in November 1999, Proposition E formed the SFMTA out the San Francisco Municipal Railway, Department of Parking and Traffic and Parking Authority. Proposition E set a funding level for the SFMTA based on the General Fund allocations then received by those independent agencies. For subsequent years, it tied funding adjustments to the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City discretionary revenues. With the current national economic situation, the City s General Fund revenues have decreased, which in turn has decreased funding available to the SFMTA. Long-Term Structural Operating Budget Challenges The SFMTA s local mixture of operating funding sources, including transit fares, parking and traffic collections and fines and General Fund revenues provides over 80 percent of operating revenue, or more than $600 million annually. These sources have not proven to be sufficient to support SFMTA transportation programs and the current national economic downturn is likely to exacerbate the situation. In particular, San Francisco s General Fund provides an important source of revenue for the SFMTA, comprising over one quarter of the operating budget. However, as currently structured, the General Fund is DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 77 of 96

80 unlikely to be able to fund significant increases in transit service and other potential climate change mitigation measures administered by the SFMTA. Proposition E s provision that adjusts City contributions based on changes to total General Fund revenues essentially allows the SFMTA to grow or shrink based on the state of the economy. When the economy is weak, SFMTA s funding may be reduced, which may lead to transit service reductions, fare increases and cutbacks to bicycle, pedestrian and other programs. Even when the economy is strong, the net revenue increase, after adjusting for inflation, may only be a few percentage points. Furthermore, as the economy has historically been cyclical, it is unlikely that net inflation-adjusted revenue growth can be sustained over time. Passed by San Francisco voters in November 2007, Proposition A amended Proposition E to include additional supplemental operating revenues. SFMTA now retains 80 percent of parking tax receipts and 100 percent of additional revenues generated from changes in parking policy and enforcement. Previously the SFMTA had been allocated 40 percent of parking tax receipts and 50 percent of additional parking revenues, with the remainder going to the General Fund. These provisions are estimated to generate approximately $26 million annually. The SFMTA is working to identify new operating revenues. In 2007 Mayor Gavin Newsom s Revenue Panel was convened to discuss potential funding options consisting of representatives from various City departments, the Mayor s Office, the MTC and the SFMTA Board of Directors. Funding sources that have been discussed include a hotel tax, sales tax, motor vehicle license fee and a transit impact fee/assessment district. While none of these sources alone is likely to generate all of the funding needed to achieve transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions targets, in combination with other sources such a new revenue-producing measure may be able to generate substantial resources to begin to implement improvements that will reduce automobile use. Capital Funding Capacity For FY the SFMTA budgeted to receive approximately $250 million in capital funding for vehicle replacements, operating and maintenance facilities, system modernization and other state of good repair needs. A little over a quarter of this funding originates from the federal government through formula programs (Sections 5307 and 5309) administered by the FTA. Unless funds are diverted, a similar amount is projected to come from the State s Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and State Transportation Infrastructure Bonds (Proposition 1B) passed by California voters in November The remainder of capital funding is assumed to come from matching local sources, primarily through Proposition K. 56 The FTA also provides New Starts Funding for large transit investments throughout the United States. However, this funding is limited - less than $1.6 billion nationwide per year. In FY 2009 two new rail projects were awarded New Starts funds. The multi-year grant application process requires cities and regions across the country to meet stringent criteria and compete against one another for funding. The SFMTA received a Medium High evaluation rating from the FTA for the proposed Central Subway, making it eligible for a grant award pending final federal approval. The SFMTA s existing capital program is currently underfunded. The SFMTA has identified annual capital needs of at least $600 million over the next several years, resulting in funding shortfalls of as much as $400 million each year. Potential Revenue Sources The following section discusses several potential revenue sources. Mayor Gavin Newsom s Revenue Panel funding sources The panel, which explored various 56 Amounts of Proposition K funds allocated to capital needs depend on the matching fund requirements of individual projects DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 78 of 96

81 options including a hotel tax, sales tax, motor vehicle license fee and a transit impact fee/assessment district to fund transit operations, has not yet determined which potential sources to advance. Fares The SFMTA Board has approved a fare increase on monthly passes for July 1, Adult Fast Passes will increase from $45 to $55, while discount passes for seniors, persons with disabilities and youths will increase from $10 to $15. This is expected to raise total revenues by nearly $20 million. The SFMTA Board has also approved subsequent fare increases tied to inflation levels. Fares currently fund approximately 20 percent of SFMTA s operating budget. Thus, large fare increases cannot be expected to generate huge amounts of revenue needed either to replace state funding threatened for elimination or to expand service. However, large fare increases would likely result in significant ridership losses. Federal Operating Assistance In November 2008 the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the Community Transportation Association of America advocated for the reintroduction of federal operating assistance: With so many states facing severe budget deficits and rapid declines in sales and property tax revenues due to the failing economy, provide operating aid to transit agencies to help speed the recovery of the economy and stabilize America s public transportation systems. 57 Federal operating assistance was once a major source of funding for transit systems nationwide. Two years after U.S. transit ridership reached an all-time low, and in the midst of the first energy crisis, the National Mass Transportation Act of 1974 established federal support for transit operating costs. As recently as FY , Muni received $14 million in federal operating assistance 58 ($33 million in current dollars). During the 1980s and 1990s, however, federal operating assistance declined in real terms and by the late 1990s was phased out for urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000. Federal Paratransit Operating Assistance - The decline of federal operating assistance has been compounded by well-intentioned but unfunded federal mandates. Beyond providing accessible transit vehicles and facilities, transit systems must offer door-to-door paratransit service for eligible persons with disabilities under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. Comprising roughly one percent of ridership, SFMTA s contracted paratransit program costs exceed $20 million per year. Without additional funding, transit systems have struggled to effectively meet the needs of people with disabilities while providing adequate service for their communities as a whole. Federal Capital Assistance The incoming administration has expressed interest in stimulating the economy, creating employment and protecting the environment through infrastructure projects. This presents opportunities to secure additional funding for new vehicles, rail extensions, the replacement and establishment of new operating and maintenance facilities and other major transit investments. SFpark Currently the SFMTA collects slightly over $30 million in revenues from on-street parking meters and another $35 million from City-owned parking garages. The variable pricing of parking under SFpark could generate an incremental $10 million or more annually in parking revenues. While this would provide an important supplemental source of revenue, the primary purpose of SFpark is to better manage the City s limited parking supply that is currently oversubscribed. Congestion Pricing The SFCTA anticipates that a congestion pricing program could generate a net of $35 million to $65 million annually for undetermined transportation purposes after administrative costs are covered. This projection assumes a congestion fee of $3 per vehicle during peak hours. Like the SFpark program, congestion pricing could provide an important supplemental source of revenue, but in and of itself is unlikely to generate the level of funding needed to implement the climate change mitigation measures described in this report. Tax Increment Financing Improvements to transit services can raise the values of residential and business properties by providing enhanced access. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a method of raising revenues to pay for these transit improvements by capturing a portion of tax revenues that 57 A Policy Agenda For Public Transportation, Presented to the Transportation Transition Team of President Elect Barack Obama, November 25, San Francisco Municipal Railway Short-Range Transit Plan, DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 79 of 96

82 result from property value increases. Cap and Trade Cap and Trade is an approach that could be used to control GHG emissions. Under Cap and Trade, the local, state or federal government would cap the amount of CO 2 and subsequently gradually reduce the amount that can be emitted. Companies would be issued emission permits and would either sell or buy credits, depending on whether they emitted less or more than their emission quota. The total amount of permits would represent the total amount of acceptable emissions. A portion of revenues from the buying of credits could partially fund transit and other programs that reduce these emissions. Carbon Tax A carbon tax would directly impose a fee on the emission of CO 2, potentially with the fee increasing over time to encourage emissions reductions. Revenues from this tax could support transit and other emissions reductions programs. Given the magnitude of additional resources needed to support transportation sector greenhouse gas reduction programs, it is likely that multiple sources of funding, including ones not previously discussed, will need to be secured. At the local level, there remain multiple opportunities to raise additional revenues for enhancements to the transportation system. As climate change is a problem that extends beyond the City s and the region s boundaries and is a national (and international) concern, funding will also likely need to come from the state and federal level. The success of the SFMTA s ability to deploy the strategies and recommendations detailed in this plan will be contingent on identification of adequate resources. If the SFMTA cannot secure necessary resources, this will undoubtedly impact plan implementation DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 80 of 96

83 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The City and County of San Francisco recognizes the significant challenge posed by climate change, and the SFMTA is prepared to contribute to the solution by examining agency operations as well as its role in the transportation sector. The Mayor has established the goal of a 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels in GHG emissions by 2012 for City departments, and Proposition A sets this same goal for the transportation sector. The SFMTA has launched a variety of initiatives to reduce the carbon footprint of its facilities and operations, including using lower emission vehicles and fuels in addition to the already extensive network of electric vehicles. It has also implemented multiple programs to increase transit ridership and encourage sustainable modes of transportation by integrating developments in information technology and customer-focused services. These efforts must be combined with vehicle demand reduction and a passenger car mode shift to greener vehicles. The time to act is now. With rising emissions from the United States and even greater rates of emission increases from developing countries, it is the responsibility of those cities at the forefront of innovation and responsible governance to actively address global climate change. Given that approximately half of San Francisco s GHG emissions come from the transportation sector, shifting people to transit, walking, bicycling and other sustainable transportation modes can contribute to this effort. Ultimately, success will require government policies and funding that encourage: Reduced personal vehicle travel Massive production and use of cleaner vehicles Substantial increases in public transit, bicycles and walking Development of dense land use patterns that support non-auto modes of travel DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 81 of 96

84 ACRONYMS AB 32 California Assembly Bill 32, formerly called California Global Warming Solutions Act of AB 118 California Assembly Bill 118, created the Energy Commission's Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. AB 939 Assembly Bill 939 to begin diverting recyclable waste materials from ever growing landfills. AC Transit Alameda Contra Costa County Transit District AFPP Alternative Fuel Pilot Program (SFMTA ) ARS Annual Recycling Survey AVL Automatic Vehicle Location system B20 Biodiesel B20 is a 20% blend of biodiesel with 80% conventional diesel BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BOS Board of Supervisors BTU British Thermal Unit CAFÉ Corporate Average Fuel Economy Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP SFMTA Clean Air Plan Zero Emission 2020 CARB California Air Resources Board CCSF City and County of San Francisco CEC California Energy Commission CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (FTA) CNG Compressed Natural Gas CO 2 Carbon Dioxide DPH Department of Public Health DPT Department of Parking and Traffic DPW Department of Public Works DTIF Downtown Transportation Impact Fee DWA Department Waste Assessment F Fahrenheit FC Fuel Cell FTA Federal Transit Administration GHG Greenhouse Gas GPS Global Positioning System H 2 Hydrogen HD Heavy-duty (vehicle) HOV High Occupancy Vehicle LED Light Emitting Diode LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, standard for Green Building Design LNG Liquid Natural Gas LRV Light Rail Vehicle MD Medium duty (vehicle) MECA Mayor s Energy Conservation Account MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission Muni San Francisco Municipal Railway NOx Oxides of nitrogen ppm Parts per million (ppm) PUC Public Utility Commission RCO Resource Conservation Ordinance RCP Resource Conservation Plan DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 82 of 96

85 SamTrans SB 375 SFCTA SFE SFMTA SFO SMS SOP SUV SRTP TA TDM TEP TFV TOD USDOE VMT VTA WETA ZEB ZEV San Mateo County Transit District California Senate Bill 375, links land use planning with global warming. San Francisco County Transportation Authority SF Environment San Francisco Department of the Environment San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency San Francisco International Airport Short message service Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program. Promotes energy efficiency; also Standard Operating Procedure Sport Utility Vehicle Short Range Transit Plan Transportation Authority (SFCTA) Transportation Demand Management Transit Effectiveness Project Transit Fleet Vehicle Transit Oriented Development United States Department of Energy Vehicle Miles Travelled Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Water Emergency Transportation Authority Zero Emission Bus Zero Emission Vehicle DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 83 of 96

86 APPENDIX A - SFMTA INTRODUCTION The following section is included for format consistency with citywide climate action plan categories. Mission The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) is the City s umbrella transportation agency, including both the Municipal Railway (Muni) and the Division of Parking and Traffic (DPT), formerly the Department of Parking and Traffic). The SFMTA mission is providing timely, convenient, safe and environmentally friendly transportation alternatives. SFMTA enhances the quality of life of San Francisco. The SFMTA is responsible for planning, design and operation of: public transit and paratransit service/facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, traffic and parking (both on-street parking and off-street facilities and parking enforcement). Taxis will join the SFMTA in March Employees and Budget SFMTA has 4,865 employees and has an annual operating budget of about $790 million. Table 1 provides the FY budgeted positions by division. SFMTA Employees by Division Division Budgeted Positions FY 2008 (approx) Percent of Total Muni Service Delivery and Operations 3,575 73% External Affairs 115 2% Technology Planning 38 1% Transportation Planning & Development 236 5% Finance & Information Technology 155 3% Executive Office 8 0.2% Human Resources 72 2% Security and Enforcement % Parking & Traffic/Parking Authority 180 4% Total 4, % Muni operates public transportation in the City and County of San Francisco. It is the Bay Area s largest transit operator and eighth largest in the country, based on ridership. Muni carries roughly 700,000 trips every weekday (about 220 million trips per year). Facilities SFMTA facilities include: Muni operating/maintenance divisions Kirkland Division Woods Division Flynn Division Islais Creek Division (future) Potrero Division Presidio Division Green Division Green Annex Geneva Yard and Shop (with Upper Yard) DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 84 of 96

87 Cable Car Barn Metro East Muni Operations Control Central Control Non-revenue Vehicles Scott Division Maintenance Facilities 1401 Bryant/2502 Alameda Power Control Center 700 Pennsylvania 1399 Marin Street Burke Avenue warehouse Administrative Offices 875 Stevenson One South Van Ness 401 Van Ness Partners SFMTA works with numerous partners and funding agencies. Key local oversight, funding and partner agencies include: Mayor s Office Board of Supervisors City Controller San Francisco County Transportation Authority Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Transbay Joint Powers Authority Metropolitan Transportation Commission Mayor s Office of Emergency Services Mayor s Office on Disability San Francisco Department of the Environment San Francisco Fire Department San Francisco Planning Department San Francisco Police Department San Francisco Department of Public Health San Francisco Department of Public Works San Francisco Recreation & Park Department San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Port of San Francisco Association of Bay Area Governments Bay Area Air Quality Management District Public Utilities Commission Bay Area Transit District Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District San Mateo County Transit District Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority WETA DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 85 of 96

88 The SFMTA sponsors and meets with a number of citizens advisory committees. The SFMTA also works closely with dozens of community organizations, including schools, neighborhood associations and community advocacy groups. Labor unions play an important role at the SFMTA. Seventeen unions represent about 4,800 employees, ranging from Transport Workers Union Local 250A, which represents the approximately 2,200 Muni operators, to the Glaziers Local 718, which represents five employees. Work rules and compensation for these employees are governed by collective bargaining agreements between the unions and the SFMTA DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 86 of 96

89 APPENDIX B STATE CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION AB 32: California Assembly Bill 32, formerly called California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, establishes first-in-the-world comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of GHGes (GHG). AB-32 makes the Air Resources Board (ARB) responsible for monitoring and reducing GHG emissions. AB 118 California Assembly Bill 118 created the Energy Commission's Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. The program is intended to increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels and innovative technologies that will transform California's fuel and vehicle types to help attain the state's climate change policies. SB 375 On September 30, 2008 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 375, making it the first law in the nation to link land use planning with global warming. SB 375 provides a plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through strategic land use and development. SB 375 directs CARB to set regional caps for automobile and light truck emissions that would help the state achieve its greenhouse emissions cap of 1990 levels by 2020 originally set in AB 32. The bill also sets forth a Sustainable Communities Strategy, which directs metropolitan planning organizations, in conjunction with CARB, to examine land-use patterns and to create long-term housing and transportation plans that can be used to achieve the regional caps. The bill also provides incentives for initiatives under the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Projects in high density areas with easy access to public transportation will be exempt from certain administrative requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act and will get priority transportation funding. Similarly, traffic mitigation initiatives will not be required to file certain traffic impact reports. Streamlining these processes is expected to encourage adherence to the Sustainable Communities Strategy. AB 939 In 1989 California enacted Assembly Bill 939 in an effort to begin diverting recyclable waste materials from the ever growing landfills, which were fast becoming a national crisis. AB 939 required cities and counties and other municipalities to divert 50 percent of their waste from landfills by the year DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 87 of 96

90 APPENDIX C PROPOSITION A DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 88 of 96

91 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 89 of 96

92 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 90 of 96

93 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 91 of 96

94 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 92 of 96

95 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 93 of 96

96 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 94 of 96

97 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 95 of 96

98 DRAFT FOR PUBLIC REVIEW Page 96 of 96